Get findings summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful cost context ('Cheap'), which implies faster/less data than list_findings. It doesn't describe return shape or how severity/category buckets are named, but with annotations carrying the safety burden a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what it returns and followed by the routing advice. Every clause earns its place; no filler.

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?

For a zero-param, read-only aggregate tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description gives the agent enough to call it correctly and to know it precedes list_findings. A slight gap remains because there's no output schema and the description doesn't hint at the shape of the returned counts, but it is otherwise complete.

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?

There are zero parameters, which hits the baseline-4 rule. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed ('Return counts... grouped by severity and category' with no filtering mention), so nothing is misrepresented.

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 ('Return counts of current findings') and names the grouping dimensions (severity and category). This distinguishes it clearly from list_findings, which returns the findings themselves, so the agent can tell the two apart 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'use this before list_findings to triage'. It names the alternative tool (list_findings) and the condition (triage/aggregate overview) that selects it, which is exactly the when-and-which-alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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