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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses the deduplication rule, the scoreGain edge case (0 when adding none), and the important staleness caveat that the queue reflects the site only as of the last completed whole-site scan. It stops short of covering pagination behavior or response envelope structure.

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?

The identity of the tool and its ordering logic are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the entry payload and the grouping mode. Density is high but every clause carries a distinct fact; the only mild drag is the long inline enumeration of returned fields in a single unbroken sentence.

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 must carry the return shape — and it does, naming the per-entry fields, the sample finding reference, and the scan timestamps. Combined with 100% parameter coverage it is nearly self-sufficient; the only gap is explicit routing relative to sibling list/read tools.

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 the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by explaining semantics the schema only states tersely: what a 'template' grouping entry means (rule × template), that one rule entry usually maps to a single shared-layout change, and that ruleId + pathTemplate jointly identify a group.

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?

It names a specific resource and scope: the site's open issues ordered by Loomaly's recommended fix priority, explicitly framed as 'the dashboard's queue'. This distinguishes it from the raw sibling findings_list by conveying prioritization and rule-level deduplication. An agent can tell what it gets back 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it explains defaults (state=open, one entry per rule) and the alternate grouping mode, but never says when to reach for this over findings_list, focus_page, or fix_prompt. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so the agent must infer routing from the priority framing alone.

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