list_policy_exceptions

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 only the table name and a state-filter note; it says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or whether an unfiltered call returns every state — relevant given the limit default of 25 against a potentially large table.

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 short fragments with no filler, and the resource identity is front-loaded before the filter hint. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification for a tool with five parameters.

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 a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essentials but omits default list behavior (what an unfiltered call returns), pagination expectations, and how the raw query parameter interacts with state. These gaps are modest but real for an agent composing calls.

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 — including the state enum mapping, limit bounds, and raw encoded query — are already documented in the schema. The description's only parameter note ('Filter by state') restates the schema rather than adding syntax or interaction semantics, so the 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 and resource (List Policy Exceptions) and names the backing table (sn_compliance_policy_exception), which disambiguates it from compliance-policy and GRC siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_policy_exception, but the list-vs-get naming plus the table hint makes the purpose clear.

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' hints at a narrowing option but gives no context on when to use this tool versus get_policy_exception for a single record or list_compliance_policies for the parent policies. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives named, so the agent must infer routing from names alone.

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