Explain a finding code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description's real value is disclosing the shape of the response — a meaning, an action to try, and the evidence that would settle the question — which is important because no output schema exists. It does not say how unknown or malformed codes are handled.

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 tight sentence with zero filler, front-loading the most important output (what the code means) ahead of remediation and evidence. Its only structural weakness is being a fragment with no subject or verb, which costs a little interpretive effort.

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 one-parameter read-only lookup, the essentials are nearly covered: annotations handle the safety profile and the description sketches the return content in place of a missing output schema. What is missing is any input-format guidance and any indication of usage context, leaving the definition adequate but thin.

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 single required 'code' parameter is documented nowhere. The description at least implies the input is a finding code, but supplies no format, example, source, or case-sensitivity guidance. With one bare string parameter the description should be carrying this burden and largely 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 title supplies the verb+resource ('Explain a finding code') and the description sharpens it by naming the three things returned: meaning, remediation, and disambiguating evidence. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a sentence, but an agent can tell exactly what the tool produces. The siblings (stack_health, stack_snapshot) are unrelated enough that explicit differentiation is unnecessary.

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 statement of when to call this vs. inspecting stack_health or stack_snapshot, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the follow-up lookup for a code surfaced elsewhere. No context is given about valid inputs or when the tool is useless.

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