list_assessment_results_findings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that results are paged, that only "loaded" documents are covered, and what each item contains. It stops short of stating ordering, total-count behavior, or whether the call is purely read-only, but the remaining gaps are modest for a list operation.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The core purpose leads, and the follow-up tool hint plus paging note come after, so the agent gets the essential fact first.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, so the description must describe returns — and it does, naming UUID, title, and parent document. It is nearly complete for this complexity level, missing only ordering guarantees and behavior when no documents are loaded.

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 100%, so limit, offset, and parent_doc_uuid are already fully documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only an implicit nod to the parent-document scoping semantics, nothing about defaults or paging interaction beyond what the schema says.

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 findings in loaded OSCAL Assessment Results") and enumerates the fields returned (UUID, title, parent document). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the closely-named sibling list_assessment_results_results, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

It gives a useful forward pointer — use get_child_element to fetch a finding's full OSCAL JSON — and notes results are paged, so the agent knows the follow-up path. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over list_assessment_results, list_assessment_results_results, or query_assessment_results, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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