scf_list_deficiencies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: newest-first ordering and the taxonomy of deficiency sources (control at risk, insufficient composite, rejected evidence, capability tests). However, it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether any deficiencies are excluded by default.

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, well-constructed sentence that front-loads the core purpose (list deficiencies) and tucks the ordering and source taxonomy into a tight parenthetical list. No 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 readOnly listing tool with a fully documented 7-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, ordering, and item origins well. It omits pagination/result-size behavior and any note on default filtering, which are the only meaningful gaps for a listing tool.

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 schema already documents every filter parameter clearly, including enums and foreign-key sourcing hints (e.g., 'obtain from scf_list_organizations'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so 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 and resource ('List the organisation's control deficiencies') and adds scope detail (newest-first ordering, and the two origins of deficiencies: hand-raised vs platform-raised types). Clear enough to distinguish from scf_get_deficiency (single-item) and scf_create_deficiency, but it doesn't name a sibling it might be confused with, so not a 5.

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?

Implied usage through filtering parameters (domain, scf_id, risk_code, capability_test_id) and the enumeration of deficiency origins, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives. The agent can infer it is the listing tool but receives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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