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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context with 'owner-scoped' (access is limited to the caller's own jobs) and 'completed' (results only exist after the job finishes), but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or error behavior.

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?

One sentence, no filler, with the scope and the prerequisite front-loaded before the resource. Every word carries weight.

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 two-parameter read-only retrieval tool with a fully documented schema and rich annotations, this is nearly sufficient. The only real gap is the absence of any hint about result size, pagination, or whether an incomplete job returns partial data.

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 both job_id and format are already documented, including the pattern and the cross-reference to batch_scan_start. The description adds no syntax, format, or default detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete verb ('Fetch') and resource ('findings') plus a scope qualifier ('owner-scoped') and a precondition ('completed asynchronous batch scan'). That implicitly separates it from batch_scan_start and batch_scan_status, though it never names a sibling 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 'for a completed asynchronous batch scan' signals the correct call point, and the job_id schema description points back to batch_scan_start. But there is no explicit guidance on what to do when status is still running, and no mention of an alternative to prefer.

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