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

With no annotations, the description carries the load well: it discloses deduplication, aggregation scope, a paid-plan access gate, and the X-API-Key requirement with an api_key fallback for header-less clients. It omits rate limits and return/pagination behavior, but covers the traits an agent most needs before calling.

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?

Four tight sentences, each doing distinct work (scope, exclusivity, plan gate, auth). The scope statement is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim beyond the exclusivity rule it must reinforce.

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 an 11-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope, access gating, and authentication well. It would be stronger if it described the return shape (finding fields) or pagination semantics, but the schema handles limit/offset.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the project_id/vault_id mutual exclusion as an invocation rule and clarifies when to fall back to api_key in arguments. Filter parameters (tag, severity, status) are left to the schema, which documents them adequately.

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 and resource ('Returns deduplicated security findings') plus the two scoping modes (project/all vaults vs. single vault). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get-code-smells or get-code-vault-results from the description alone.

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?

Gives explicit invocation conditions: 'Provide exactly one of project_id or vault_id', plus the plan prerequisite (full data access required; verification-only plans excluded) and auth options. It does not compare itself to sibling reporting tools, so it stops short of the top tier.

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