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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the useful alias behavior (id accepted for scanId) and DAST-specific flag handling. It does not describe auth requirements beyond the schema or what happens with an invalid/unknown scanId, so it adds moderate value on top of 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and resource, then the return-shape parenthetical, then the alias note. Dense but every clause carries information; the parenthetical lists are somewhat comma-heavy but not wasteful.

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 read-only getter with no output schema, the description names the returned config sections and status, and covers the ambiguous scanId alias. Auth details live in the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation, missing only failure-mode behavior.

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 50%: botId and projectApiKey are documented in the schema, while id and scanId are undocumented there. The description explicitly compensates by explaining the scanId/id alias, which is exactly the missing piece, and clarifies how dastCheckConfig flags should be honored.

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 ('Fetch security scan config by scan id') and enumerates the returned detail sub-objects (dastCheckConfig, sastCheckConfig, depsCheckConfig, leaksCheckConfig, release label, status). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list, though it never names a related tool (e.g. report-scan-findings, update-scan-progress) to anchor it.

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?

'Used by /testchimp run security scan' implies the invocation context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative sibling is mentioned. The agent can infer the usage but must guess about edge cases.

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