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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'privacy-filtered' behavioral detail, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose what 'privacy-filtered' means in practice (e.g., which fields are redacted) or any pagination/ordering behavior.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource. However, it could have used the available space to clarify parameter semantics without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent cannot determine what sessionId and executionId mean, what the response looks like, or how 'privacy-filtered' affects the returned data. The read-only annotations reduce some burden, but the parameter ambiguity remains unresolved.

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%, so the description must compensate for the three parameters (projectId, sessionId, executionId). The description only mentions 'project metadata' and does not explain the role of sessionId or executionId, nor how they filter the results. This is a significant gap for a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('hosted list investigations') and adds a qualifier ('using privacy-filtered project metadata'). It is clear enough to distinguish from siblings like list_findings or list_reports, though it does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast itself.

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 description implies a read-only listing operation but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_findings, list_reports, or list_project_sessions. The 'privacy-filtered' qualifier hints at a use case, but no exclusions or alternative routing are stated.

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