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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one useful trait: retracted findings remain fetchable, so a result is not guaranteed to be current. It says nothing about not-found behavior, whether job scoping restricts access, or any permission requirements.

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 resource and lookup key front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so the only cost is under-specification, not verbosity.

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 presence of an output schema means return values need no explanation, but for a two-parameter lookup tool with zero schema coverage the description should explain the job_id/finding_id relationship and disambiguate against explain_finding. Neither is present, so an agent must guess.

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 both parameters are required with no type beyond string. The description only gestures at finding_id ("by id") and says nothing about job_id, leaving the crucial question of whether finding_id is globally unique or scoped to a job entirely unanswered.

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?

"Fetch a single finding by id" gives a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical clarifies that both accepted and retracted findings are retrievable. It distinguishes itself reasonably from list_jobs and get_job, though it never explicitly contrasts with explain_finding, the sibling most likely to be confused with it.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only implied condition is that the caller already possesses a finding id, and nothing tells the agent whether to prefer explain_finding when it wants interpretation rather than raw data.

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