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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real context beyond them — deployment gating, operator authorization against a watchlist, and graceful degradation to 'info' when unprovisioned. It omits any note on result volume, pagination, or what 'degrades to info' concretely returns.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and constraints following in priority order; no filler. It loses a point only because the compressed clause 'degrades to info when unprovisioned' is ambiguous jargon an agent may misread.

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, a reader still gets access model, authorization requirements, and degradation behavior — enough to call it safely. It stops short of describing the findings payload, so an agent cannot anticipate the result shape from the description alone.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds rationale the schema lacks: scanId is required specifically so reads can be owner-scoped, and target/provider filters are optional narrowing. That explains *why* the mandatory parameter exists rather than merely restating it.

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+resource+scope: 'Retrieve findings from a completed cloud-bucket discovery scan by scanId.' It also implicitly distinguishes itself from scan_buckets_start (which produces the scan) and scan_buckets_status (which tracks it), so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

States prerequisites clearly: operator-deploy only, targets must be operator-authorized on the recon watchlist, and the scan must be completed. It does not explicitly name the sibling to call first (scan_buckets_start/status) or what to do when the scan is not yet complete, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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