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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add what they cannot: no new scan is started, no credits are consumed, records are scoped to the caller's account, and a missing or inaccessible id yields an error rather than an empty result. That is solid added context; the only gap is that the concrete shape of a returned record is left implied.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core retrieval behavior, followed by the credit/no-scan reassurance and the sibling redirect. The long parenthetical enumerations of id formats are dense but each maps to a distinct accepted input, so they earn their space; the text never wanders off-topic.

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 one-parameter read-only resolver this covers purpose, id sources, accepted id families, cost implications and error behavior — enough to call it correctly without further probing. Only the return payload itself is undescribed (and no output schema exists), so an agent cannot predict the response structure, which keeps it short of full marks.

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% and the single id parameter is fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema by explaining the provenance of valid ids (search / vulkill_list_reports output) and the failure mode for invalid ones, though it largely restates the format enumeration already present in the schema.

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 verb (fetch/retrieve) plus the exact resource classes it resolves: an account-owned saved report, a formatted export variant (<scanId>:executive/:vendor_trust/:sarif/:cyclonedx), a sample PDF descriptor, or a cap- prefixed capability record. The enumerations make it unmistakable versus siblings like search and vulkill_list_reports, which produce the ids rather than resolve 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?

Explicitly anchors the input to upstream tools (ids from search or vulkill_list_reports results) and names the alternative for a different job (vulkill_get_scan_status for updating a running task's status). It also rules out a plausible misreading — that this starts a scan or costs credits — which is exactly the kind of when/when-not guidance an agent needs.

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