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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured metadata. The description adds a useful behavioral detail with "privacy-filtered project metadata," but says nothing about pagination, authorization, or result limits, so it remains only modestly additive.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no wasted phrasing. The structure is front-loaded around the read/list action, though the phrase "hosted list investigations" is slightly awkward and could be tightened.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema covers all three parameters, but with no output schema the description should still explain what an investigation listing contains and how the optional sessionId/executionId filters narrow the result. It provides the privacy-filtering context but leaves those operational details unstated, making it only minimally complete.

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 100%, so the schema is already responsible for documenting the parameters and baseline is 3. The description itself contributes no parameter-level meaning beyond the general phrase "project metadata," and does not clarify how sessionId or executionId filter the investigation list.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Read") with a resource ("investigations") and a scope ("hosted list"), so an agent can tell it retrieves investigations. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_findings or delete_investigation, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no indication of when to choose this tool over list_findings, list_reports, or other list operations, and no mention of prerequisites such as the required projectId. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.

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