Get full detail for one finding

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing exactly what the returned finding contains, including how the SOC 2 mapping was derived and its confidence level. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 a single compact sentence that leads with the core action ('Returns a single finding') and then packs the distinguishing payload details without filler. It is easy to scan and earns its length.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, read-only annotations, and full input-schema documentation with parameter provenance, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It explains what makes this tool valuable without needing to restate structured schema information.

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%, and both batchId and findingId already have descriptions that specify their origin from scan_iac and list_findings, respectively. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb and resource: it returns a single finding, and it enumerates the specific detail categories included: SOC 2 control mapping, mapping derivation and confidence, blast-radius classification, and remediation guidance. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like explain_finding, but the 'single finding' framing distinguishes it from list-oriented 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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit: the title and description suggest retrieving full details for one finding, and the input schema mentions that batchId comes from scan_iac and findingId from list_findings. However, the description does not state when to prefer this over explain_finding or other related tools, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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