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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so 'Read-only' is largely confirmatory rather than additive. The description still adds real behavior: the default result ordering (exploited-in-the-wild first, then severity) and the breadth of scope across every scanned cluster, which an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and purpose, then filters, then the alternative tool. Dense but every sentence does work, with only minor redundancy in 'Read-only' duplicating the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the fields surfaced (KEV, EPSS, affected clusters/workloads, fixability). Filters, default ordering and the drill-down path are covered; only pagination behavior and differentiation from the other security-list siblings are left implicit.

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 all twelve parameters are already documented (including defaults for page, page_size and sort). The description restates the filterable facets (severity, status, fixable, known_exploited, cluster, add-on, namespace, search) without adding syntax, accepted values, or combinations beyond the schema. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 organisation's security findings'), scopes it precisely ('CVEs across every scanned cluster'), and names what is returned (KEV/EPSS intelligence, affected clusters/workloads, fixability). The closing pointer to get_security_finding distinguishes it from the drill-down sibling.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use it (fleet-wide CVE listing with exploitation prioritisation) and explicitly routes the agent to get_security_finding for a single-finding drill-down. It does not contrast with adjacent listers such as list_security_finding_occurrences or list_security_sbom_image_findings, so no explicit when-not guidance.

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