list_audit_control_tests

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantic context that the table serves as the audit result record (a data-model nuance an agent could not infer), but it says nothing about default page size, result ordering, or what a returned record looks like.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and table name, with no filler. The em-dash construction makes the quotation-dense first sentence slightly harder to parse, but nothing is wasted.

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 an eight-parameter, fully schema-documented list tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the schema cannot: what a control test actually represents and how it relates to audit engagements. Only pagination/return-shape expectations are left implicit, which is acceptable given the rich schema.

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%, so every parameter including the state enum values and limit default is already documented. The description merely restates three of the eight filter names (control, test plan, design/operation effectiveness) without adding syntax, combination, or behavior detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (List Control Tests / sn_audit_control_test) and adds a genuine disambiguation: this record IS the audit result, there is no sn_audit_result table. It doesn't name a sibling tool (e.g. get_audit_control_test) as an alternative, but an agent can tell what this returns without reading the schema.

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 sentence 'Filter by control, test plan, or design/operation effectiveness' implies the common retrieval contexts, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_audit_control_test for a single record or query_records for arbitrary filtering.

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