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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, but the description adds substantial context beyond that. It discloses the redaction behavior on plans that withhold proof, notes that the finding and severity remain real even when category reads '[redacted]', and explains pagination with total_matched and next_cursor bound to the same filters.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and ordering, then moves efficiently through filtering, summary-vs-detail routing, redaction behavior, and pagination. Every sentence adds practical information for invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Given the existence of an output schema and the read-only annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs beyond structured fields: filtering semantics, get_finding routing, redaction caveat, and cursor handling. No material invocation detail is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains status, target model, minimum severity, specific run filtering, 200-per-page pagination, and the cursor's binding to the original filters. It does not enumerate the allowed status or severity values, though the schema enums do provide those separately.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("List security/safety findings"), names the scope ("your workspace"), and specifies ordering ("most recent first"). It also distinguishes the tool from its sibling get_finding by saying the list returns a compact summary while get_finding returns repro detail.

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 description explicitly routes the agent: use this tool for the list, and call get_finding when reproduction detail for a specific finding is needed. It also explains the optional filters and how to continue pagination with the same filters, leaving little to inference.

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