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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety burden is carried elsewhere. The description still adds real behavioral detail beyond annotations: results are ordered highest-risk-first and the response is paginated, plus what a threshold change does to the result set.

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?

Front-loaded purpose in the first clause, then response shape, then the one parameter note — no filler. The enumerated return fields overlap with the existing output schema, which is mild redundancy rather than bloat.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values did not need enumerating, and the safety profile is covered by annotations. The real gap is parameter guidance: for a search tool with three undocumented parameters, an agent gets no sense of sensible limit values, page behaviour, or the risk-score scale.

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% and only min_risk_score gets any prose treatment ('raises the threshold'), with no indication of its range or scale. 'Paginated' hints at page/limit, but their defaults and bounds are left entirely to bare integer titles in the schema.

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?

'List scans that the security analyzer scored as high risk, highest first' gives a specific verb, resource, filter and sort order. The 'security analyzer' framing implicitly separates it from siblings like search_ai_high_risk and get_analyzer_results, but no sibling is named outright, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the use case (pull the top high-risk analyzer findings, optionally tighten the cutoff), and 'min_risk_score raises the threshold' gives one concrete usage lever. It never says when to prefer this over search_ai_high_risk, search_scans, or get_analyzer_results, so usage remains inferential.

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