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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered. The description's 'Queues' adds useful async/queued context beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose permissions, latency, or what a 'fresh round' entails.

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?

A single sentence with the action verb front-loaded and no wasted filler. It is efficient, though the phrase 'a fresh round for the verified app' is slightly circuitous compared to simply naming the finding retest.

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, 33% parameter coverage, and a queued (asynchronous) mutation, the description should explain what the retest produces, whether the call blocks, and the relationship to the mandatory idempotency_key. None of this is covered, leaving notable gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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 only 33%, with scan_id and finding_id undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate but largely does not. 'A previous finding' loosely maps to finding_id and 'verified app' hints at scan context, but scan_id is never referenced and no format or ID-source guidance is given.

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 pairs a specific action ('Queues a fresh round') with a clear target ('a previous finding can be checked again'), so an agent understands this re-runs verification on an existing finding. It stops short of naming how it differs from siblings like start_scan, so differentiate-ability is only implicit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as start_scan or get_fix_prompt. The clause about checking a previous finding again hints at the trigger context (after a fix) but leaves routing entirely to inference.

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