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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are newest first and that each finding carries rule, URL, and evidence. It doesn't disclose pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, or what happens when state is omitted (defaults to open, which is in the schema). No contradiction.

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 with zero waste. The core action and result content are front-loaded, followed by a compact filter list. Every sentence 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?

For a read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool returns (findings with rule, URL, evidence) and ordering. It doesn't describe the output format, but with no output schema and a simple list tool, that's a minor gap. The annotations cover safety, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters. The description adds a compact filter list and clarifies that state defaults to open (though the schema also says this). It doesn't add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('findings for a site'), with ordering ('newest first') and content details (rule, URL, evidence). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like mark_fixed or ignore_finding, which are mutations, and from sites_list, which lists sites.

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 description implies usage context: list findings for a site, with filters. It doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives, but the filter list and 'newest first' ordering give clear context. It doesn't mention exclusions like 'use verify to re-check' but the sibling names make the distinction fairly clear.

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