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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it restates read-only, explains the destructive-free narrowing semantics of statuses ('revoked ones are listed only when asked for'), and discloses the two distinct result shapes returned depending on scope. It stops short of describing pagination defaults (only page_size's schema mentions them) or rate limits.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence carries information; nothing is filler. It is dense and slightly run-on with long enumerations, but the density is justified by the dual-mode behavior and rich return fields, so it earns its length.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema read tool this is nearly complete: it enumerates returned fields and explains both modes. Pagination defaults are only in the schema and the description doesn't recap them, a minor gap. An agent has what it needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: it explains that scope=repository_code switches result sets entirely, and that statuses filters lifecycle states with the special revoked-only-when-requested caveat. It also ties application_id/repository_id to the repository_code scope, clarifying behavior the schema only hints at.

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 the vulnerability disposition policies of the organisation') and then enumerates exactly what each row contains (selector, disposition, reason, expiry, status, match count). It also clearly distinguishes the scope=repository_code variant that lists image-gate waivers instead, and names the sibling tools (update_security_disposition, revoke_security_disposition) it feeds. An agent can tell it apart from the other security list_* tools without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to use it: 'to review accepted risk before it expires and to find the policy_id update_security_disposition and revoke_security_disposition take.' That is strong routing guidance toward the downstream mutation tools. It does not state when *not* to use it or contrast it with a sibling list tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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