explain_finding

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral context by noting that evidence is caller-reported and that the tool distinguishes a possible risk from an independently verified failure, but it does not explain return format, limitations, or what the explanation is based on beyond the supplied evidence.

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 two compact sentences and front-loads the core purpose before adding the risk-versus-failure distinction and language guidance. It is efficient, though the second sentence is somewhat abstract and could be more concrete about the tool's output.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries more responsibility for explaining what the caller receives. It states that the tool prepares an explanation and guides the agent on language and risk/failure distinction, but it does not describe the return shape or how the explanation is structured, leaving a notable gap for a four-parameter generation 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 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It gives meaningful coverage for language (English or Brazilian Portuguese) and clarifies that risk and caller-reported evidence feed the explanation, but it does not explain the role or expected format of risk_id, observation, or evidence_refs beyond that high-level framing.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: prepare an explanation of a risk plus caller-reported evidence, in English or Brazilian Portuguese. It also states a useful distinction between a possible risk and an independently verified failure, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like investigate_risk or propose_remediation.

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 usage context is implied: this tool is for producing a user-facing explanation after a risk has been identified, and it guides the calling agent to explain the source mechanism in the user's language. However, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions relative to siblings such as investigate_risk or get_risk.

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