zeasm_get_finding_details

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, and the description redundantly states 'Read-only.' However, it adds behavioral context by enumerating exactly what additional data the call returns (description, country, CISA/EPSS signals, scan provenance), which helps the agent anticipate the response content. No contradiction with 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?

The description is two concise sentences. The first sentence delivers the primary purpose, and the second lists added fields with no redundant filler. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter getter with readOnlyHint and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the key content differences from list/finding tools. It could be more complete by explicitly mentioning that the response includes triage fields, but the phrase 'on top of the triage fields' implies this. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the field enumeration.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does not mention org_id or finding_id at all. Though the parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description gives no guidance on their format, required relationship, or how to obtain valid values (e.g., via list endpoints).

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full detail for one EASM finding.' It clarifies the scope ('one finding') and mentions extra fields (description, country, CISA/EPSS signals, scan provenance), which distinguishes it from a list operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling getters like zeasm_get_finding_evidence or zeasm_get_finding_scan_output.

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 'full detail' and the list of added fields implies this tool is for retrieving richer data beyond triage fields. This gives a clear context for when to use it, but there are no explicit when-not-to-use instructions or named alternatives. Sibling tool names suggest related getters, but the description does not draw these comparisons.

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