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

Goes well beyond the readOnly annotations: documents the exact return fields (id, githubCommentId join semantics including null cases, claim, lifecycle, latest verdict/verification), the append-only judgment chains, and three non-obvious filtering rules (own-run exclusion, obsolete exclusion, history toggling). This is rich operational behavior an agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then return semantics and filtering rules; every sentence carries information. It is dense and somewhat long, but no sentence is wasted.

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 fully compensates by enumerating returned fields and their join semantics, plus the behavioral filters. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 coverage is 60% and the schema already carries detailed descriptions for include_history and include_obsolete; the description largely restates those rather than adding new param-level meaning. organization_id/repository/pr params get no added explanation in the description, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Read all recorded findings for a PR') with the scope ('any lifecycle status') and the downstream purpose ('so verdicts can be recorded by exact id'). It implicitly contrasts with the write-side sibling record_finding_verdict by emphasizing this read returns ids for judging.

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?

Gives clear context: use it to obtain exact ids before recording verdicts, and states two exclusion conditions (own-run judgments, obsolescence-swept findings). It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over other listing tools, but the routing intent is clear.

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