List LoS consequences

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: advisory-only, no notification sent to notify_roles, scope-resolution precedence (most specific wins), severity-as-floor scaling, and null-metric matching. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose before the behavioral rules, and every sentence carries substantive information. Dense but justified; only slightly heavy on stacked clauses.

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 output schema, the description explains what the records represent and how they surface (Status screen on breach). Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, an agent has enough to select and call it correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: severity acts as a floor whose displayed value scales with gap size and criticality, and a null metric matches any metric. These clarify filter semantics beyond the bare enum lists.

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 (List) and resource (LoS consequences) and then defines the domain concept in plain terms: 'what a missed technical target means, in the organization's own words.' Clearly distinguishable from the singular get_los_consequence sibling.

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 clear filtering context ('Filter by scope type, severity or active') and explains matching semantics, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this list versus fetching a single consequence. Context is clear without exclusions.

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