findings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It states the query returns verified findings with evidence and verdicts, but doesn't disclose that status can be refuted/disputed/open, nor that repo is optional, nor any pagination or ordering. It doesn't contradict anything, but it's minimal. The word 'Query' implies read-only, but no explicit behavioral detail beyond that.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the resource and purpose. It efficiently communicates the core intent without unnecessary elaboration. The only minor waste is the phrase 'verified findings' which could mislead about status filtering, but overall it's tight and well-structured.

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 query tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough to understand the domain and purpose. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of the status enum (beyond listing verified) or what repo refers to, leaving some ambiguity. It's adequate but not complete for an agent to call it with confidence.

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 the description does not mention either parameter (repo, status) at all. The enum in the schema provides status values, but the description adds no meaning to what statuses mean or how repo should be formatted. Since there are 2 parameters and coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without guidance.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Query' and a specific resource 'attested audit finding registry (lunc-audit)', and clarifies content (evidence, repro commands, verdicts). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like balance or simulate_tx, which are unrelated. The slight ambiguity of 'verified findings' (since status includes refuted/disputed) is minor but doesn't undermine clarity.

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 use for audit findings but provides no explicit when-to-use or exclusions. It doesn't name alternative tools or conditions, even though siblings are clearly different domains. The context makes it obvious this is for audit registry queries, so a 3 is appropriate (implied but not explicit).

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