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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the description's added value is the operator-deploy restriction, watchlist authorization, owner-scoped reads, and the degrade-to-info-when-unprovisioned behavior. These are real behavioral disclosures beyond the annotations, though the degraded output format itself is undocumented.

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 and the scanId rationale front-loaded, and prerequisites appended. Density is good; the compressed clause stack ('Operator-deploy only; targets must be operator-authorized...; degrades to info when unprovisioned') borders on jargony but earns its place.

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, the description should give some sense of what findings are returned and in what shape; it only says 'Retrieve findings'. Combined with zero param coverage and no output schema, there is a real gap, though annotations carry the safety profile and the scan-family context is intact.

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% across 3 parameters, so the description carries the load. It explains why scanId is required (owner-scoping) and marks target/providers as optional filters, which is useful, but adds no format, matching, or value-semantics guidance for any of the three parameters.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (findings from a completed cloud-bucket discovery scan), keyed by scanId. This clearly distinguishes it from scan_buckets_start and scan_buckets_status within the same family, so an agent can place it in the scan lifecycle without opening the schema.

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?

Conveys the key precondition that the scan must be 'completed' and that this is operator-deploy only with operator-authorized targets, which is strong context. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g. scan_buckets_status) or stating when-not to use it, so it falls 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.