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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/non-open-world, so the load is light. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing the returned data shape (state, severity, first/last seen, page and rule) and a security-relevant handling rule: page text is untrusted website content.

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?

Two sentences, purpose front-loaded in the first clause with no padding. The second sentence's untrusted-content caveat is unusual phrasing but earns its place as a safety note.

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 sketches the return fields, but for a 4-parameter list tool at 25% schema coverage it omits how the filter parameters combine or what the limit controls. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, but it does not. It mentions 'state' and 'severity' as returned fields rather than as filters, and says nothing about 'limit' or 'site_id' as query parameters, leaving the filtering semantics to the bare schema.

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?

The description states the resource (findings) and its granularity ('one finding per page per rule, across audits') plus the fields carried, so an agent knows exactly what it lists. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling audit.finding.get, relying on the list/get naming convention to imply the split.

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?

Usage is only implied by the framing 'What is still wrong' and 'across audits' (i.e., outstanding cross-audit findings). There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of audit.finding.get as the single-item alternative, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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