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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it never marks anything fixed (so a rescan is required to verify), and it warns that text from the scanned site is untrusted data, not instructions — a prompt-injection caveat annotations cannot express.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and the field list before the workflow and safety caveats. The middle field enumeration is slightly dense, but 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields and adds the untrusted-content warning and the rescan workflow, which is enough for an agent to call and interpret it correctly. Only minor gaps remain, such as error behavior for unknown findingIds.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters including where scanId and findingId originate. The description only restates 'by findingId' without adding format, validation, or sourcing detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (get one finding of a completed scan) and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_findings and list_blockers that return sets. An agent can identify it without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'by findingId' phrasing hints that identifiers come from a listing call, and the 'rescan once the fix is deployed' note gives workflow context. But no sibling is named as the alternative and no explicit when-to-use condition is given.

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