scf_get_evidence_maturity

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by enumerating what the summary contains: average maturity score, automation percentage, distribution by maturity level, and improvement opportunities.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the return contents in a compact list. Every element earns its place and no unnecessary words are present.

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 simple read-only summary tool with one fully documented parameter, the description covers the key return areas sufficiently. It does not describe the exact response structure, but no output schema exists and the listed fields give an agent enough context to invoke and interpret the call.

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 the org_id parameter already has a clear description telling the agent to obtain it from scf_list_organizations. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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'), a clear resource ('organization's evidence maturity summary'), and the exact data included. The 'organization's' qualifier and contents distinguish it from sibling tools like scf_get_evidence_item_maturity and scf_get_evidence_validation_summary.

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 implies org-level use by naming the organization's summary, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not tell the agent to prefer scf_get_evidence_item_maturity for item-level maturity questions.

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