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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful context by disclosing the shape of the returned config and the DAST-specific fields to honour (allowActiveScan / useEphemeralSandbox / scope), which is real behavioral value. However, it says nothing about read-only nature, auth requirements, or failure behavior.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core verb+resource, but the two parenthetical blocks (detail.* field list and DAST fields) make it a dense run-on that is harder to parse. It is compact but the nested lists reduce readability.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description partially compensates by describing the returned config structure. It still leaves gaps around the id's origin, error cases, and permissions, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0% for the single 'id' parameter, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the id is a scan id and gives the CLI flag (--id), but omits the id format or where to obtain it, leaving the parameter only partially documented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Fetch security scan config by scan id') and enumerates what the config contains (dast/sast/deps/leaks check configs, release label, status). It clearly distinguishes itself from the report-* and update-* siblings, though it does not name any alternative tool explicitly.

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?

It provides some context ('Used by /testchimp run security scan') and how to pass the id (CLI: --id), but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no prerequisites, and no routing to sibling tools. Usage is only implied.

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