Api findings assessments sunburst data retrieve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no note on whether the result is aggregated across all assessments, whether it respects folder/perimeter permissions, or how large the payload is. The dangling colon suggests more was intended but is absent.

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 short and front-loaded with the subject, which is good. But it is a single fragment ending in a colon, which reads as a truncated sentence rather than a complete, deliberate definition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place the agent can learn what the returned structure looks like. It never explains the shape of sunburst data (hierarchy/labels/values), its scope (all assessments vs filtered), or whether it is chart-ready. For a zero-param analytics endpoint with no output schema, this leaves a real gap.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; the description does not misrepresent the no-argument nature of the call.

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?

States the resource (FindingsAssessment data) and its output format (sunburst visualization), which gives slightly more than the title's bare restatement. However, it does not distinguish it from nearby siblings like findings_assessments_metrics_retrieve or the parallel applied_controls_sunburst_data_retrieve / policies_sunburst_data_retrieve tools. An agent still has to infer what 'sunburst data' contains.

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?

No indication of when to use this over findings_assessments_metrics_retrieve, findings_assessments_list, or the sankey/treemap-style siblings. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing, so the agent has no decision criteria.

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