find_endpoint_calls_in_tenant

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses fan-out across orgs, bounded concurrency via parameter, and return format including dashboard_url. It also instructs the agent to include clickable links in results. Missing details like rate limits or error handling, but sufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Four sentences with each serving a purpose: purpose, methodology, usage alternative, output presentation rule. Front-loaded with core action. No fluff.

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?

No output schema, so description explains return structure (flat list, fields). Covers process and constraints. Slight gap in error scenarios or edge cases, but overall complete for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds beyond schema by explaining endpoint is a substring, concurrency bounded 1-20, observationsPerOrg caps per-org results. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 it finds observations of a network endpoint across all GitHub orgs in a tenant. It specifies the action (find), resource (workflow-run observations), and scope (every org). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool check_ioc_in_baseline by name-dropping it.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this instead of check_ioc_in_baseline when the user asks "did anyone in our tenant contact X?"' This provides a concrete when-to-use scenario. No when-not-to is stated, but the context is clear.

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