scf_get_deficiency

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is already covered; the description adds value by disclosing the shape of the result (title, priority, status, owner, due date, linked control/risk, source, root cause, retest note, closer), which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of full transparency (no error/not-found or permission notes) but is well above baseline.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first, followed by an enumeration that earns its place as return-field documentation given the missing output schema. The field list is long but not padded with filler.

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 two-parameter read-only fetch with fully documented params and no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece (what comes back). It is nearly complete, lacking only explicit routing guidance relative to the list and summary siblings.

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 100% and both UUID params already document their formats and where to obtain them (scf_list_organizations, scf_list_deficiencies). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one deficiency') and enumerates the returned fields, which clearly separates it from scf_list_deficiencies and scf_get_deficiency_summary. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it falls just short of the top score.

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 word 'one' implies a single-record lookup versus the list/summary siblings, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over scf_list_deficiencies or scf_get_deficiency_summary, and no prerequisites mentioned. Usage is only implied.

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