list_grc_indicators

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 domain context that these are periodic pass/fail metrics for a Control or Risk, but it does not disclose result shape, pagination behavior, or other operational traits beyond what the schema and annotations provide.

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, front-loaded sentence with an em-dash clarification and a compact filter summary. There is no filler, and the key domain context is stated before the filtering detail.

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 read-only list tool with annotations covering safety and a schema documenting most parameters, the description supplies the necessary domain framing and filter scope. It could be more complete by naming when to use it over sibling indicator tools, but the core information needed to call it correctly is present.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description adds semantic clarity by explaining that `item` is the measured Control/Risk and that the indicator is scoped to an Entity, but it does not explain the remaining parameters such as `query`, `active`, `limit`, or `display_value`.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List GRC Indicators'), names the table (sn_grc_indicator), and defines the domain object as KRI/KPI metrics measuring a Control or Risk for an Entity. It is clear on its own, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as list_pa_indicators or list_indicator_results.

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 phrase 'Filter by entity, category, or last result' implies the common filtering use cases, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_grc_indicator, list_indicator_results, or list_pa_indicators. Usage is inferable but not documented as a routing rule.

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