list_grc_issues

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 and the bar is lower. The description adds the meaningful behavioral note that this table is the catch-all for compliance gaps and audit findings, but says nothing about volume (default 25 / max 1000 is only in schema), ordering, or what a returned record looks like. Useful context, but thin beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the identity and table name, followed by filter scope. Nothing is padded and no sentence merely restates the title.

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 full annotations and a reasonably documented schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly, and the domain definition of the record type is the key missing ingredient it provides. Only the lack of routing against sibling issue/audit tools keeps it from a 5.

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 71%, so the schema largely carries the parameter burden and baseline 3 applies. The description name-drops state, Entity, and classification, and its use of "Entity" usefully bridges to the "profile" parameter (which the schema explains as a related Entity sys_id). Four of seven parameters — limit, query, display_value, assignment_group — are untouched.

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 GRC Issues / sn_grc_issue) and explains what the record type actually is — the generic finding/gap record for compliance gaps and audit findings. That domain gloss is genuinely useful. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling readers like get_grc_issue or list_compliance_controls, so it stops short of a 5.

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, Entity, or classification" implies how the tool is typically scoped, but never says when to reach for this instead of get_grc_issue, list_audit_engagements, or list_control_objectives. There are no exclusions or preconditions. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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