Get Incident Type

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what is returned, whether missing ids error, or how include/fields affect the payload.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the key qualifier ('by id') front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than tight completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, an output schema exists, and annotations plus a fully documented schema cover most needs. Still, the description does nothing to explain the include/fields_incidents expansion behavior, leaving a small but real gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including the uuid/slug anyOf and the include/fields_incidents options, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only restates 'by id' and adds no semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('incident_type') scoped to a single record by id, which distinguishes it from list_incident_types. It does not, however, explicitly name the sibling list/create/update tools it differs from.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'by id' implies the precondition that the caller already has an identifier, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or reference to list_incident_types for discovery. Usage is only inferable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.