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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the non-mutating nature, and the description adds useful context by specifying the output format, the default filter, and the requirement for project context. It does not explicitly state side effects, but the annotation and export-focused wording make the behavior reasonably clear.

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 concise and well structured, with the main purpose stated first, followed by default behavior, use case, alternative tool, and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers all necessary context: what it produces, the format, the default behavior, when to use it, the alternative tool, and the required project context. No important information is missing.

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?

The schema already describes the status parameter with possible values and default, so coverage is high. The description adds the rationale for the default ('Defaults to open findings so the export reflects the current posture'), which provides extra meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 clearly states that the tool exports the project's security findings as a SARIF 2.1.0 document. It names the exact resource, action, and output format, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to hand findings to CI or GitHub and points to get_security_findings for reading findings in the product. It also notes the default open-findings behavior, giving clear guidance on when and how to use it.

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