List Severities

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description contributes nothing beyond that — no notes on result volume, pagination behavior, or what filter combinations are supported — so it fails to add value on top of the annotations.

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 words long; this is under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded scope statement to build on, so nothing earns its place because nothing is present.

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 tool with 29 undocumented parameters, a full annotation set, and an output schema, the description supplies no operational context at all. An agent cannot know how to construct a valid or efficient query from what is written here.

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 has 29 properties at 0% description coverage, including many overlapping filter variants (filter_name, filter_name_eq, filter_name_in, filter_name_not_eq, filter_name_not_in) that are impossible to disambiguate from names alone. The description does not explain a single parameter, leaving the agent to guess at sort syntax, include semantics, and filter operator conventions.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_severity, create_severity, or update_severity, nor any mention of prerequisites or pagination expectations. The agent must infer everything 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.