Explain a finding in plain English

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds a meaningful behavioral guarantee: every output is derived from the finding itself and it never invents a risk claim. It also discloses that missing or weak control-mapping data will be explicitly flagged rather than silently filled in, which is important trust context for an AI agent.

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?

Three sentences each carry distinct information: what the tool produces, the content of the output, and the honesty/limitation behavior. The list of explanation components is compact and front-loaded, with 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 read-only tool with two simple required parameters and an output schema, the description covers what the result contains, where the data comes from, and how gaps are handled. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the two parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond identifying the finding context, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific resource ('a finding from a scan') and a specific action ('explains it without jargon'), then enumerates exactly what the explanation covers: meaning, risk, auditor relevance, remediation, and fix size. This separates it from siblings like get_finding (raw retrieval) and map_iac_finding_to_control (mapping only), even though no sibling is named.

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 purpose is clearly to get a plain-English, auditor-oriented explanation of a specific finding, so an agent can infer when to call it after identifying a finding. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that no exclusions are needed for a read-only explanation tool.

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