get_finding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the response includes affected entities and evidence references, but it doesn't state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or how errors are handled. The name 'get' implies retrieval but safety isn't explicitly confirmed.

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 short phrase, which is concise, but it's so brief that it omits important usage details. It is front-loaded with the key point but lacks enough substance to be considered well-structured for agent consumption.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a required parameter, the description is inadequate. It doesn't mention the required finding_id, the optional engagement, return format, or how it relates to other tools. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior from this text alone.

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 description adds no parameter-specific information. Schema coverage is 50% (only 'engagement' has a description), and the description does not compensate for the undocumented 'finding_id' parameter or clarify parameter relationships. It merely restates the general purpose.

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 states it returns 'one finding' with 'affected entities and evidence references,' clearly indicating a singular retrieval operation distinct from list_findings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_entity, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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