list_audit_engagements

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 one genuinely non-derivable trait, "Ordered by most recently updated," but says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or whether all engagements are returned regardless of access scope.

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?

Three short clauses: identity/table, scope, filters, then ordering. Front-loaded with the resource name and zero wasted words.

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 simple read-only list tool with a fully documented five-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and how results are ordered. Only minor gaps remain (default limit of 25 is schema-only, no note on result volume).

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% and the state and engagement_type parameters already carry enumerated code meanings plus examples. The description merely echoes that these two filters exist, adding no syntax, defaults, or interaction details (e.g. how state and query combine) 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+resource ("List Audit Engagements") along with the underlying table (sn_audit_engagement) and scope ("the top-level audit project record"), so the agent knows it returns project-level records, not child controls or tests. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_audit_engagement, though the List/Get verb difference is self-evident.

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?

"Filter by state or engagement type" implies the browse/filter use case, but there is no statement of when to use this versus get_audit_engagement for a single record, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is inferable rather than guided.

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