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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the return is a full audit history of who acted and when, plus which observations opened, last saw and resolved the finding, and that mutation is impossible here.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the return-content statement leads and the constraint follows. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spends its words describing what comes back (history, observations, actors, timestamps), which is exactly the gap it must fill. It stops short of mentioning pagination or behavior for a missing/invalid finding_id, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 0% and the sole parameter 'finding_id' is never mentioned in the description, so no added meaning is supplied. The parameter is self-evident by name and typed/constrained in the schema, keeping this at the minimum-viable level rather than below it.

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 ('Get' a 'finding') and defines scope as 'One finding', which implicitly contrasts with the audit.finding.list sibling. No sibling is named explicitly, but the singular-retrieval framing is unambiguous.

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?

The closing sentence gives a clear negative boundary — state changes are not available through an assistant — which steers the agent away from attempting a mutation. It does not, however, explicitly say when to prefer this over audit.finding.list versus retrieving a known ID.

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