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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: findings are grouped by report, ordered by sequence, and pagination is not guaranteed to start at Finding #1 on page 1. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 dense but every sentence carries information: resource, filters, identifier formats, return contents, ordering semantics, and a pagination caveat. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler.

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?

The description covers the essential call context, including the ambiguity around page ordering and the fact that finding IDs are internal-only. An output schema exists, so the description is not required to detail return fields, and it provides enough operational grounding for correct invocation.

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 100%, and the schema already documents the accepted ID formats (prefixed or numeric), case-insensitive platform names, and defaults. The description largely restates these details rather than adding new parameter meaning, though it does reinforce the distinction between sequence numbers and internal finding IDs.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Lists SMI release findings') and immediately clarifies scope with pagination and filtering. The resource is distinct from sibling tools like smi_get_deep_report and smi_list_exports, so an agent can identify what this tool returns.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: listing findings with optional report/platform/confirmation/scope filters. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the use case is concrete enough for an agent to infer applicability.

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