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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds some content context (the result carries a detected flag and a note) but says nothing about volume, pagination, or auth beyond the annotations; the return-shape detail is also partly redundant with the existing output schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the parameter note. The middle clause explaining pastejacking costs a few words but earns them by making an obscure term self-explanatory.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description covers purpose, the technique's meaning, and the key input's origin. It is only slightly thin on sibling differentiation and on what an empty/negative result looks like.

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% for the single parameter, so the description must carry it — and it does partially, specifying scan_id is a UUID and that it belongs to a ScanMalware scan, which disambiguates it from other scan identifiers in this large toolset. Format/lookup-failure behavior is still unstated.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (pastejacking findings) scoped to one scan, and defines the phenomenon so the agent knows what data this returns. It is clearly distinguishable from clipboard-adjacent siblings like get_clipboard_events and search_suspicious_clipboard without opening any 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?

Implies usage is a per-scan lookup ("for one scan") and names the required scan_id, but never says when to prefer this over get_clipboard_events, get_malware_by_scan, or search_suspicious_clipboard, nor any when-not condition. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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