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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and the description confirms 'Read-only', so safety is covered. Beyond that it discloses the row contents (scan state, disposition, first/last seen) and a non-obvious default-filtering behavior: the detail view hides resolved occurrences unless status=resolved is passed. It does not mention pagination limits or ordering, which keeps it below a 5.

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, front-loaded with the scope, then the safety hint, then the routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no restatement of the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so adequately by enumerating the per-occurrence fields and mentioning paging. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits total-count/ordering details an agent might want when paging.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal meaning beyond the schema: it implies cluster_id scopes to one cluster and pins status=resolved as the value that reveals hidden occurrences, but does not clarify page/page_size behavior or how status values like acknowledged and accepted_risk differ from open.

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?

Specific verb ('List') plus a precisely scoped resource: every cluster, workload, container and image where one finding is observed, one row per occurrence. It clearly distinguishes itself from the singular get_security_finding and the aggregate list_security_findings by stating the occurrence-level grain.

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?

Names the sibling overlap explicitly ('get_security_finding embeds the current occurrences') and then gives three concrete conditions for choosing this tool instead: paging through occurrences, narrowing to one cluster, and surfacing resolved occurrences the detail hides. Nothing is left to inference.

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