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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the scoping constraint of a scan_id but does not disclose other behavioral traits like return format, pagination, or error behavior. It does not contradict 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It earns its place by being direct and complete enough for a simple getter.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It does not explain what 'pastejacking' refers to, nor does it provide usage context, but the sibling naming pattern and scan_id scope make it understandable. It could be enhanced with a brief definition or note on return values.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal value by placing scan_id in context ('for a scan_id') but does not explain what a scan_id is, where to find it, or any format expectations. This is a thin addition beyond the schema's parameter name.

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 'Get pastejacking findings for a scan_id' uses a specific verb ('get'), names the resource ('pastejacking findings'), and specifies the scope ('for a scan_id'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_malware_by_scan or get_ocr_by_scan by its unique finding type.

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 its usage: one would call this tool when needing pastejacking findings for a given scan. However, it provides no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or comparison to other scan-related getter tools, leaving the agent to infer when to choose this over siblings.

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