scf_get_deficiency_summary

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds the scope constraint that only *open* deficiencies are counted and enumerates the four metric families returned. It stops short of describing pagination, time window, or any filtering behavior, but it meaningfully extends the safety-only annotation.

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 that leads with the verb and resource before enumerating output metrics. The dense field list is justified because no output schema exists, though the parenthetical "(with material flag)" slightly interrupts scanning.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned metrics, and readOnlyHint covers the safety profile for this single-parameter read tool. The main remaining gap is the absence of any statement about time range or whether counts are org-wide, which an agent might want to know.

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?

Only one parameter (org_id) exists and its schema description is fully populated, including a pointer to scf_list_organizations for discovery. The description adds no parameter semantics of its own, so the baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the full burden.

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 names a specific aggregation action ("Summarise open deficiencies") and enumerates the exact metrics produced (open_total, material_open_total, unlinked_open, per-control and per-domain counts). It is clearly distinct from siblings like scf_list_deficiencies or scf_get_deficiency, though it never names those siblings as alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the word "Summarise" and the aggregate metrics listed, so an agent can infer this is the rollup view rather than the detail view. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over scf_list_deficiencies, nor any prerequisite or scoping guidance.

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