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

The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond annotations. 'privacy-filtered' is vague and unexplained. Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true), but the description does not elaborate on side effects, authentication, or other behavioral traits. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is short but not concise in a helpful way – it is under-specified and confusing. It does not front-load critical information and the single sentence is vague, making it hard for an agent to understand the operation.

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?

Given the complexity (5 parameters, nested details object, no output schema, zero schema descriptions), the description is grossly inadequate. It fails to explain what a 'finding' is, what 'privacy-filtered project metadata' means, or how the idempotency key works. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool with the provided information.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters, but it mentions none of the five parameters (projectId, idempotencyKey, sessionId, executionId, details). No meaning is added beyond the schema's type/pattern constraints.

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 'Update hosted create finding using privacy-filtered project metadata' is ambiguous. The tool is named create_finding but the description says 'Update', and 'hosted create finding' is unclear. It does not clearly state what the tool does or how it differs from siblings like update_finding or promote_insight_to_finding.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites. The description provides no context for choosing create_finding over similar tools.

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