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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, such as the newest-first ordering, the ability to fetch a single run with live progress, and the ignoring of filters when scanRunId is provided. No side effects or contradictions are present.

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 consists of two concise sentences: one for the primary purpose and one for the alternative single-run usage plus prerequisite. It is perfectly sized with no redundancy or irrelevant details.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description is complete enough for a simple list operation. It conveys the ordering, filtering options, and the single-run polling use case, which is all an agent needs to invoke the tool 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?

All five parameters have descriptions covering defaults, allowed values for status, and the special behavior of scanRunId ignoring filters. This fully complements the schema and adds meaningful constraints like pageSize max of 100.

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 the tool lists security scan runs for the active project, newest first. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_scan_profiles and list_scenario_runs by specifying the resource type and the optional single-run mode via scanRunId.

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?

It explicitly explains when to pass scanRunId to get a single run with live progress, and that this is the polling mechanism for scans started by run_security_scan. It also states the prerequisite of project context, giving clear guidance on when to use the tool versus focusing on the single-run variant.

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