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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the scope behavior (company-wide vs. single scan) and the shape of the returned inventory, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior beyond `limit`.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents, followed by the scoping rule. The parenthetical placement is slightly awkward but nothing is wasted.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so adequately by listing authentication status, risk level, risk factors and the method/risk breakdowns. Combined with the two-parameter schema and read-only annotations, an agent has enough 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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the description's 'company-wide if omitted' note merely restates the scan_id schema text. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no new parameter detail.

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?

States a specific resource (API security inventory) and enumerates its contents: discovered API endpoints with authentication status, risk level, risk factors, plus method/risk breakdowns. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_code_findings or get_shadow_ai by the API-endpoint scope, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 final clause 'Company-wide or one scan with `scan_id`' tells the agent the two scoping modes, and the parenthetical 'part of Code Security' situates it in the product. There is no when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no alternatives named among the many sibling read tools.

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