scf_get_evidence_validation_summary

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful context about the aggregated nature and output fields, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as potential data staleness, scoping rules, or whether the metrics are computed live. With annotations present, this level is acceptable.

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, information-dense sentence that front-loads the main action and resource, then specifies exactly what is returned. No filler or redundancy.

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 aggregate tool with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description fully conveys the purpose and expected return contents. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including format, pattern, and a pointer to scf_list_organizations for obtaining valid org_id values. The description does not add further 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('aggregate evidence validation metrics'), and clearly enumerates the returned data (counts by status, pass rate). It differentiates itself as an organization-dashboard aggregate, which distinguishes it from per-file validation tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

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 phrase 'for the organization dashboard' implies the intended context, but the description offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings like scf_get_evidence_validation, scf_get_evidence_health, or scf_get_evidence_assessment_summary. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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