hcm_describe_finder

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a read-only operation, and the description does not contradict that. It adds a useful behavioral caveat that the catalog is curated and not full Fusion metadata, but it does not go deeper into return format, completeness guarantees, or other operational behavior. This is decent but not rich behavioral context.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the 'not full Fusion metadata' caveat is placed prominently in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple two-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the general purpose and an important caveat. However, it leaves the list-all-finders trigger ambiguous and provides no output-shape guidance, which matters more here because there is no output schema. A little more detail about how to invoke each mode would make it 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry parameter meaning on its own. It only loosely implies that 'resource' scopes the finder and that a finder may be omitted to list all finders, but it never explains valid values, requiredness, or how the two parameters interact. This is insufficient compensation for the total lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the verb ('Describe'), the resource type ('curated ADF finder parameters'), and an alternate mode ('list all finders'). This distinguishes it from related siblings like hcm_describe_resource or hcm_lov_finder. The 'Unofficial catalog' qualifier further narrows its scope.

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 lightweight, unofficial use case and hints that omitting a finder may list all finders, but it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives. It also does not warn against using it when full Fusion metadata is required, even though that is the main value of the 'unofficial' caveat.

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