Finding Detail

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

The description adds useful behavioral context by stating the response includes evidence and PoC. It is consistent with the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, and there is no contradiction. It does not discuss error behavior, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 a single concise sentence with no unnecessary detail or repetition. It efficiently conveys the tool's core purpose and output scope.

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 simple read-only lookup with a single required parameter, the description conveys the essential purpose and return content. It could mention finding_id format or error conditions, but the presence of an output schema partially reduces the need to describe return structure.

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?

The schema only defines finding_id as a required string with no description, and the description does not explain how to obtain or format finding_id. Since schema coverage is effectively 0%, the description needed to compensate, but it only refers to 'one finding' without explicitly mapping that to the finding_id parameter.

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 states that the tool returns the full record for one finding, including evidence and PoC, which distinguishes it from list-oriented tools like findings_list. However, it lacks an explicit verb such as 'retrieves' or 'gets', so purpose is slightly less direct.

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 'Full record for one finding' implies this is appropriate when detailed evidence and PoC are needed for a single finding. It does not explicitly name alternatives, such as findings_list for summaries or finding_note for adding notes, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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