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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds beyond that: page size and ordering behaviour, the pagination mechanism, and an important interpretive caveat that a clean grade says nothing about skipped areas and the agent should say so. That caveat is genuine behavioural context not derivable from the schema.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: report contents first, then pagination and filtering mechanics. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical honesty caveat briefly interrupts the flow of the field enumeration.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating returned elements and pagination shape. It is close to complete for calling the tool correctly; only edge details like max offset behaviour or finding count metadata are absent.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the enum and default for limit. The description only adds the 'most severe first' ordering and reiterates offset/min_severity usage, so it sits at the baseline for a fully-covered schema.

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 ('the finished report for a scan') and enumerates exactly what the report contains: grade, tested/skipped areas, prioritised findings with fixes and evidence, and a fix prompt. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_scan_status (status vs full report) and list_recent_scans (discovery vs content).

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?

Gives concrete operating guidance: findings paginate 25 per page most-severe-first, use offset for the next page, or min_severity to focus. It also routes the agent on scan_id provenance implicitly via the schema. It stops short of stating when NOT to call it or explicitly contrasting with sibling tools.

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