list_risk_acceptances

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no indication that this is a safe read, no default page size or total-count/pagination behavior, no ordering guarantees, and no notes on how multiple filters combine. The limit/offset args hint at pagination but the description never explains the paging contract.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args block is terse and scannable. Slight redundancy in restating parameter names that already appear in the schema, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a six-parameter read tool with no annotations and no usage guidance, the definition leaves gaps around default paging values, filter combination, and how it relates to the single-record and mutating risk-acceptance siblings.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does document all six parameters with real semantics beyond their titles (e.g. 'Filter by an accepted finding ID', 'Filter by name (contains)', 'accepted_by: Filter by acceptor name/email (contains)'). It misses the defaults (limit=25, offset=0) and whether filters are ANDed, but the coverage is otherwise solid.

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 and resource ('List risk acceptances'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling read tool get_risk_acceptance or explain how this differs from list_findings-style listings, so an agent must infer that this is the collection-level read while get_risk_acceptance fetches one record.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as get_risk_acceptance for a single record. The argument list implies filtering by finding or owner, but the description never says why or when an agent should reach for this tool.

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