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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, so the description is not obligated to restate safety. It does add genuinely new behavioral facts: the response is capped at 25 items and each item carries severity, resource, and recommendation. The gap is that the 25-item cap is stated with no pagination or truncation guidance, leaving the agent unsure how to retrieve the remainder.

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 compact clauses with the payload description front-loaded, followed by the alternative-tool pointer and a short disclaimer. The opening phrase "The findings of a scan on the connected account" is slightly padded but carries no real waste.

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 usefully enumerates the fields returned and the result cap, which is exactly the compensation needed. It stops short of stating ordering or how to page past 25 findings, the one thing an agent would still need to know for a complete picture.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that scanId comes from start_scan or list_scans. The description adds nothing about the identifier's format or validity, so the baseline of 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?

Names the specific resource (findings of a scan) and the payload contents (severity, affected resource, recommendation), which is far more informative than the title alone. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling get_scan_summary, so an agent must infer that this is the detailed row-level view versus an aggregate.

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?

"Use explain_finding for what a code means" is a clean, explicit routing rule to a named sibling, and the schema ties invocation to a scanId from start_scan or list_scans. It gives no exclusion against get_scan_summary or get_prescan_result, so the boundary in the findings-vs-summary pair is left implicit.

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