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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world. The description adds little beyond repeating fields: no mention of permission requirements, what happens on duplicate idempotency, or what the returned identifier looks like. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is fair but not more.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler. 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?

A 9-parameter mutation with no output schema and partial schema coverage. The description covers the primary required fields and the optional link, but leaves sessionId/executionId unexplained and doesn't describe the result (new finding ID?). Adequate but clearly incomplete.

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 56%, so some parameters are documented only in the schema (reportId, projectId, sessionId, executionId, idempotencyKey all have descriptions). The description lists title, notes, severity, linkedNodeIds, but doesn't clarify the semantics of sessionId, executionId, or the severity enum levels. It mildly compensates for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb ('Open') and resource ('canonical finding in Reports'), and names optional linkage to reportId. It's distinguishable from create_finding and queue_report_bug, though the 'canonical finding' jargon leans slightly toward internal terminology.

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?

No guidance on when to use this vs. siblings like create_finding, queue_report_bug, or queue_report. The 'optionally linked to reportId' hint suggests a relation to an existing report but doesn't state when that path applies.

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