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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds workspace scoping and optional filter context, but does not disclose behaviors such as pagination, result limits, or whether unfiltered lists return all findings. This is acceptable given the annotations but not richly transparent.

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 entire description is one concise, front-loaded sentence. It immediately states the action and resource, then appends the optional filter scope without any filler or redundant 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one required parameter, the description is mostly complete: it names the workspace scope and optional filters. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or explicitly contrast with get_finding, but given the annotations and schema, an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly in most cases.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It partially does by clarifying that 'status' acts as a lifecycle filter and naming severity as a filter dimension. However, it omits assetId and does not describe possible status values. The parameter names are mostly self-explanatory, but the low coverage means the description only partially bridges the gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), names the resource ('workspace findings'), and states the optional filtering dimensions ('lifecycle and severity'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_finding and list_assets, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clearly implies this is the listing tool for findings within a workspace, with optional filters. It does not explicitly call out when to use get_finding instead for a single finding, but the 'List' verb and context make the intended use reasonably clear. No misleading guidance is present.

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