list_indicator_results

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the result set may be empty unless collection has run, which sets expectations about return behavior. It does not cover pagination or ordering, but the emptiness warning is the key behavioral fact for this tool.

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 compact sentences: the purpose (with table name and record type) is front-loaded, and the emptiness note follows. No padding, though the specific instance/date reference is marginally less useful than general guidance would be.

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 exists and none is needed since annotations cover the safety profile and the description sets expectations about empty results. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only the relationship to sibling indicator tools left implicit.

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 all five parameters (limit, query, passed, indicator, display_value) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or interaction, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (Indicator Results / sn_grc_indicator_result), and clarifies what the records are: 'individual pass/fail collection events for an Indicator.' It is clearly a listing tool for that child table, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_indicator_result or the GRC indicator tools.

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 note that it is 'included for instances where indicator collection has run' implies when it will yield data, and the emptiness caveat is a helpful usage signal. However, it never states when to prefer this over get_indicator_result or list_grc_indicators, leaving selection between siblings to inference.

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