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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, yet the description still adds genuine behavioral context: the cell list is empty when every tested cell passed, cell results contain no fix suggestions, and hygiene findings are catalog observations rather than verdicts. The conditional switch between signed-report and unverified output is a meaningful disclosure the annotations cannot express. It stops short of covering auth needs, errors, or pagination.

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 content is delivered as a dense, run-on paragraph with long chains of enumerated fields joined by dashes and commas, forcing the agent to parse a wall of text to find the branch logic. The main case is front-loaded, but the structure does not separate the two output modes, and much of the field enumeration is padding that could be tightened.

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 carries the full return-value burden and largely meets it: it describes both output shapes, the edge case of an empty cell list, and the nature of hygiene findings. Given a single required parameter and a simple schema, the main remaining gaps are error behavior and run_id sourcing, which are minor.

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?

There is one parameter (run_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the semantics. It contextualizes run_id indirectly by tying it to a complete run with or without a signed report, but never defines the identifier's format, source, or valid values. Self-evident enough to be workable, but it leaves the gap the schema created unfilled.

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 names a specific resource (the cells that did not pass in a run) and enumerates the payload blocks returned (verdict, surface, operation, boundary, identity, layer outcomes, tenancy flags, blocking findings, hygiene block), so the agent knows what it gets. It never differentiates itself from siblings like get_report or get_run_status, and the two-branch return shape (signed report vs. unverified result) makes the core purpose slightly harder to grasp than it needs to be.

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: the description explains the two run states that change the output (complete run with a signed report vs. a complete run where one can still be bought), but never states when an agent should call get_findings rather than get_report or get_run_status. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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