DLP business justification report

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms a read-only retrieval. It adds context about the source (endpoint users' override justifications) and the included fields, though it does not disclose pagination limits or matching behavior. The combination of annotations and description provides reasonable transparency without contradiction.

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 description is two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and avoids redundancy with the schema. It is efficiently worded with 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 read-only report tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, key returned fields, filtering, and pagination. It doesn't clarify whether the justification message filter is exact/substring or the default ordering, leaving minor gaps, but the overall definition is sufficiently 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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions, covering the pagination and filtering options at 100% coverage. The description reinforces that filtering by justification message and pagination are supported, but it does not add additional semantic detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score.

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 clearly identifies the tool as retrieving business justification messages for DLP overrides, listing the specific data fields (boundary type/value, event type, override comment, event time). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from the many sibling DLP network/endpoint reports, which focus on different aspects.

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 description implies the tool is for accessing DLP override justification data, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over other DLP reports, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. Context is limited to the tool's own capability rather than comparative guidance.

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