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 by structured data rather than the prose. The description adds the default-scan behavior and the shape of returned data, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, truncation at the limit, or what happens when no scan has completed. Adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, no filler. The resource and returned fields come first, and the default-resolution rule is placed last where it belongs as a fallback condition. Every clause carries information.

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 correctly compensates by listing the fields a finding contains, so an agent knows what comes back. It also covers the scan_id default and the four filters. What is missing is minor: result ordering, total counts, and behavior when the filter set matches nothing.

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%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents limit, status, scan_id, and severity. The description still adds meaning the schema omits: that an absent scan_id resolves to the latest completed scan, which is a default the schema's 'Optional code-security scan id' does not state.

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 (findings from a code-security scan) and scopes it by origin (SAST, secrets, dependencies), then enumerates exactly what each finding carries: title, severity, file/line, CWE/OWASP, status, fix. That level of detail distinguishes it from neighbors like get_remediation, get_threat_tickets, and compliance_scan without needing to name them.

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 supplies one useful selection rule — omit scan_id to get the latest completed scan — which tells the agent how to call it in the common case. It gives no guidance on when to prefer this over get_remediation (which appears to carry the fix) or code_review_scan, and offers no exclusions. Usage is implied rather than argued.

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