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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing sort order ('worst first') and the returned fields (title, severity, cloud, resource, remediation) in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about pagination, result caps, or behavior when no cloud is connected.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads scope and ordering, then enumerates returned fields; every clause carries information. It reads as a fragment, but there is no filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, describing the returned fields and sort order covers most of what an agent needs. Gaps remain around the undocumented limit/pagination behavior and the prerequisite that clouds must be connected and scanned before findings appear.

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 50%: severity is documented in the schema, but limit (default 20, max 50) has no description anywhere. The description mentions neither parameter, so it compensates for none of the coverage gap, and 'worst first' only loosely hints at default ordering rather than explaining how limit or severity interact with it.

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 a specific resource (cloud misconfigurations) and bounds it to the workspace's connected clouds across AWS, Azure, GCP and OCI, plus states ordering (worst first) and returned fields. An agent can distinguish it from the broader list_findings and list_attack_paths, though neither sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives no when-to-use guidance: it never says how this differs from list_findings or list_attack_paths, nor that cloud accounts must be connected (or a start_cloud_scan run) before results exist. The context 'workspace's connected clouds' only weakly implies prerequisites.

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