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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and doesn't say whether this is read-only, whether explanations are cached or generated per call, whether it can be slow or costly, or what the "honesty contract" obligates. A mutation-free read is implied by "explain" but never confirmed.

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 front-loaded sentence is efficient, but brevity here comes at the cost of under-specification, and the trailing clause about the honesty contract consumes space without conveying usable information.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but with no annotations, zero parameter documentation, and no usage routing, the definition leaves too much unspecified for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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?

Two required parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions job_id or finding_id or their relationship. The agent must guess that a finding is scoped to a job and where those identifiers come from.

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?

"Explain a finding" gives a verb and a resource, so the core action is identifiable, but it isn't clear how this differs from the sibling get_finding, and the phrase "honesty contract" is unexplained jargon that an agent cannot operationalize.

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?

There is no stated condition for when to call this instead of get_finding or after which job/finding lookup. The only hint is "plain language," which implies a summarization angle but names no alternatives or prerequisites.

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