GetATCFindings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it delivers: it discloses that results are available regardless of whether the run waited (async-tolerant read) and enumerates the finding payload contents. It does not mention permissions or any cost/limit considerations, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 the read action and its key input; the remaining sentences describe the return shape and async tolerance. Slightly padded (the long list of returned fields) but each clause adds information.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields (object, position, priority, check, message, coverage counts), and it covers async behavior. Nothing critical for calling the tool is missing, though the detail parameter's effect on output is left entirely to the schema.

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 the detail enum is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds the provenance of worklist_id (answered by RunATC) but nothing about the detail levels, which the schema already handles.

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 (Read) and resource (what an ATC run found) and keys it to the sibling RunATC, making the read-vs-run distinction obvious without opening either schema.

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?

The phrase 'by the worklist_id RunATC answered' ties usage directly to a preceding RunATC call, and 'Works whether or not the run waited' tells the agent it is safe to call regardless of run completion. However, no explicit when-not or alternative-retrieval path is named.

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