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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful condition that findings are only available for a completed job, but says nothing about pagination, result size limits, or behavior when the job is still running or failed.

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 tight sentence with the precondition front-loaded after the verb; no filler, no redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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 could reasonably say something about what findings look like or how many are returned, and it does not. Given the tool's low complexity and full schema coverage, it is adequate but leaves a real gap around result shape.

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%, with job_id documenting its pattern and origin ("returned by batch_scan_start") and format documenting its enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only adds the "owner-scoped" qualifier and does not explain the full/compact format trade-off.

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 ("Fetch") plus resource ("findings"), scope ("owner-scoped"), and precondition ("completed asynchronous batch scan"). That distinguishes it from scan_buckets_findings and batch_scan_status by implication, though it never names the alternative 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 phrase "completed asynchronous batch scan" implies the tool should be called only after the job finishes, but it doesn't say which sibling to poll first (batch_scan_status) or what to do while the job is pending. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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