Api findings list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond a vague hint that the response is 'optimized' via serializer context, which does not tell the caller anything actionable about results, pagination, or filtering.

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, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. The only sentence conveys developer internals instead of front-loading the resource being listed or the filters available.

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 tool with 18 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and many sibling list/retrieve tools, the description is completely inadequate. An agent has no basis to choose this tool or to populate its parameters correctly.

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 18 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description says nothing about any of them (limit, offset, search, status, severity, max_pages, etc.). This is the exact case where the description must compensate for the schema and it does not.

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 is an internal implementation note ('Override the list method to inject optimized data into the serializer context') rather than a user-facing statement of what the tool does. Only the tool name reveals that this lists findings; the description never says it returns a list of findings or what they contain.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or how it differs from siblings such as ciso_assistant_api_findings_retrieve, ciso_assistant_api_findings_object_retrieve, or ciso_assistant_api_findings_batch_action_create. The agent is left to infer everything from the name.

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