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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint, and the description reinforces that with 'Read-only' while adding real behavioural nuance: it explains that registry_status exists so an unreachable registry isn't misread as 'nothing pushed', and it explains licence-obligation semantics. It stops short of return format, pagination, or volume expectations for a list-shaped 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?

A single dense sentence enumerating fields, plus two short sentences of behavioural context. The field list is heavy with parentheticals and slightly front-loads output detail over purpose; the registry_status sentence earns its place, but the enumeration could be tightened.

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 report with no output schema, the description covers the returned data richly and explains the licence and registry_status subtleties. Remaining gaps are minor: no guidance on volume/pagination and no routing to overlapping security tools.

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 the schema already documents application_id and component. The description mentions neither parameter, providing no additional semantics beyond the baseline.

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 (retrieves pushed image versions with security metadata for an application) and enumerates the concrete content it returns. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_application_container_security and list_security_sbom_images, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 rich enumeration of returned data implies when an agent would want it (image-version-level security posture), but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y', no exclusions, and no pointer to sibling tools such as get_application_container_security or list_security_sbom_image_findings.

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