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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does so well: it lists returned fields, explains what the detail object adds, and identifies `entities` as the pivot into the intel graph. It does not explicitly discuss read-only semantics, auth requirements, or not-found behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and return shape, then alternatives. The longer return-field list earns its place because no output schema exists.

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?

For a one-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description provides enough detail about returned fields, linked tickets, and entities to call it correctly and understand the payload. Alternatives are also covered.

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%, so the identifier parameter is already well documented in the schema. The description reinforces that only a UUID resolves, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the structured field; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: fetch a single Mallory finding by identifier and return full detail. It clearly distinguishes itself from listFindings and queryApi by naming both siblings and their roles.

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?

Explicitly says to call listFindings first when only a name or search terms are available, and to use queryApi for relationship pivots and advanced cross-entity queries. It also states the identifier must be a UUID, which prevents wasted calls.

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