Security Facts

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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the type of content returned and the filtering behavior, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as ordering guarantees, pagination beyond the limit parameter, or rate considerations.

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 with no filler. The core purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a meaningful relational hint about key_fact_id and strategies without unnecessary length.

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 list tool with full parameter documentation and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and call it correctly. It explains what facts are, what they contain, how they relate to signals, and how they can be filtered, making the tool self-contained.

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%, with each parameter already having a clear description including defaults and time format. The description paraphrases time-range and count filtering but adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'List a security's fact (catalyst) events' — and further clarifies scope by enumerating content types: anomaly detections, factor readings, data sources, and natural-language summaries. It also distinguishes facts from related concepts by noting that a signal names its trigger in key_fact_id, which separates this tool from siblings like signals or anomaly.

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 use case — facts are what strategies react to and a signal names its trigger in key_fact_id — so an agent can infer when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer security_facts over sibling tools such as signals, anomaly, or news, nor does it name any exclusions or alternatives.

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