zeasm_get_finding_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces 'Read-only'. Additionally, it lists the extra fields (description, country, exploitation-likelihood signals, scan provenance) that are included in the response, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations. No mention of authorization or error handling, but the safety profile is clear.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value—first states the action, second lists added fields. No wasted words.

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 get tool with no output schema, the description partially explains return value additions but omits parameter details. An agent would struggle to know how to populate org_id and finding_id without external context. The read-only hint is covered, but completeness suffers from the parameter gap.

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%, with two required parameters (org_id, finding_id) that have no description. The tool description does not explain what these parameters are, how to obtain a finding_id, or any constraints. Since coverage is low and the description fails to compensate, the parameter semantics are poorly defined.

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?

Clearly states the tool gets full detail for one EASM finding. The description differentiates from siblings by specifying the additional fields (description, country, CISA/EPSS signals, scan provenance) beyond triage fields. This provides a specific verb+resource with scope.

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?

Implicitly indicates usage for retrieving detailed information on a single finding. The 'Read-only' prefix clarifies it is safe to call. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus sibling tools like zeasm_list_findings or zeasm_get_finding_evidence. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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