explain_finding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds some behavioral value by promising a risk-of-acting assessment and a validation-strength signal, but says nothing about cost, latency, or behavior on an unknown finding_id.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause names a distinct piece of returned content. It is a dense comma list rather than a structured breakdown, which is slightly harder to scan but still efficient.

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 rich annotations, an output schema, and one trivial parameter, the description only needs to convey what the explanation contains, which it does. The remaining gap is that it never states what happens for an invalid or unknown finding_id.

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% and the description never mentions finding_id, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. The single parameter is self-explanatory by name, which keeps this from being a real failure, but nothing compensates for the empty schema documentation.

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 ('explain') and resource ('one finding') and enumerates what the explanation covers: detected signal, threshold, pricing, waste rationale, risk of acting, and validation strength. That content list implicitly separates it from list_findings (enumeration) and fix_guidance (remediation), though no sibling is named directly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is the follow-up to list_findings when one finding needs deeper context. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of fix_guidance as the alternative for remediation steps.

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