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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description confirms 'Read-only.' Beyond that, it discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: failed scans surface as scan errors rather than zero findings, warning the agent not to misread empty output. That is real added context beyond the structured fields, though pagination/return shape is not covered (and no output schema exists).

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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The middle sentence is dense but each clause earns its place by preventing a specific misread of results.

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 two-parameter, read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers the key semantic pitfall an agent would otherwise miss (scan error vs zero findings). It is nearly complete; only return-shape or pagination notes are absent, which is minor given the missing output schema.

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%, including a clear explanation of the optional 'component' parameter for monorepo Applications. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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 ('Read') and a precise resource ('vulnerability findings for the container images an Application publishes'), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_application_code_security or get_application_security_versions by scope. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, but the resource itself is specific enough to disambiguate.

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?

Offers a valuable interpretation rule ('do not read an empty result as a clean image without checking that the scan ran'), which is usage guidance for reading the output. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and does not route to a sibling tool, so it is implied rather than directive.

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