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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about result limits, pagination, ordering, or permission requirements, and 'limit' defaulting to 20 is never acknowledged.

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 with the resource and scope front-loaded and the optional filter second. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and this is a simple two-parameter list tool. However, with 0% schema coverage the description should have filled the gap on limit/pagination semantics and it does not.

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 0% and there are two parameters. The description covers only the severity filter semantically ('Optionally filter by severity'), while 'limit' — its default of 20 and cap behavior — is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 (List) and resource (security findings) with an explicit scope constraint: findings on the caller's monitored endpoints. No sibling covers the same resource, so the agent can distinguish it from list_my_incidents/list_my_endpoints, though it never names a sibling 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?

The only guidance is 'Optionally filter by severity,' which describes an option rather than when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to the many sibling list_* tools.

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