scf_get_engagement_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly flags this as a read operation and states role requirements ('viewer role, or an assigned auditor'). It also characterizes the returned data as the full response thread. It omits error behavior and return shape, but for a simple read tool this is reasonable.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then adds the role/authorization qualifier efficiently. Every word contributes useful information.

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 straightforward read tool with three well-documented required parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential behavioral and authorization context. It could add expected response details or error conditions, but nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented with provenance hints ('obtain from scf_list_organizations', etc.). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond naming the resource being retrieved, which is acceptable given the schema's coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('one auditor query'), and a differentiating scope ('with its full response thread'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like scf_list_engagement_queries, scf_create_engagement_query, and scf_respond_to_engagement_query.

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 description gives clear context: use this to retrieve a single query's full thread rather than listing queries. It also provides access guidance by stating viewer role or assigned auditor. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the 'one...full response thread' wording implies the appropriate use case.

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