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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: mentions truncation possible with truncated/truncated_note fields, finding_key stability across rescans, and that ids are per-run. These are important for agent correctness and go beyond the structured annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then filter, then key behavioral caveats (stable key, truncation). No filler. Each sentence adds value.

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?

No output schema, so the description must cover return shape. It mentions the map, truncation/truncated_note, and finding_key, which are the main things an agent needs to interpret results. It does not describe other finding fields (evidence, recommendation), but those are named in the first sentence. For a simple list tool with one optional filter, this is nearly complete; slight gap is not describing the returned finding object's other fields.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The status parameter is fully an enum with 4 values in the schema, but description only says 'optionally filter by status' with no detail; however, with 0% coverage, the description at least confirms the filtering behavior. It does not enumerate the status values, but the schema already does, so the description adds the optionality semantics.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource ('List findings'), clarifies what findings are in this tool's context (cross-system discrepancies with evidence, recommendation, lifecycle status), and the siblings list contains other list_* tools but the description's detail about 'documented findings for this workspace' and stable finding_key distinguishes it without needing sibling inspection.

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 (findings for this workspace, filtered by status) but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus siblings like get_map_overview, list_signals, or search. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool naming.

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