Get the maturity model

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope context beyond the annotations: this is the static, capability-agnostic reference model rather than a scoped assessment, and it hints at the content (per-level characteristics, sample KPIs like allocation coverage targets). It stops short of describing depth or shape of the returned data, but the output schema covers that.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first defines the resource and its content, the second routes to the sibling. Front-loaded and appropriately sized for a zero-parameter reference lookup.

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?

With no parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needed to establish what the model is and how it differs from the assessment sibling — both done. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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 tool takes no parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; the description correctly signals a no-argument lookup rather than implying hidden filters.

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?

Names a specific resource (the official FinOps maturity model) and its structure (Crawl/Walk/Run levels with characteristics and sample goals/KPIs). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_maturity_assessment by declaring itself capability-agnostic.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use this for the overall model, use get_maturity_assessment for a single capability's per-level assessment. The when-not condition and the alternative tool are both named, leaving nothing to inference.

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