Get a scan's findings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the differential output based on scan type and the fields included. No contradictions with 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?

Three sentences, each adding essential information without redundancy. Front-loaded with key information about the resource and output.

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 one parameter, output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains both usage scenarios and directs to alternative tool for different inputs.

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?

The only parameter 'scanId' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description mentions 'The id returned by scan_url' which matches the schema description, so no additional value beyond 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?

The description clearly states the verb-resource (get findings) and specifies the outputs: rule id, severity, help URL, and element selector. It distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_run_findings' by noting the input type (scan_url vs scan_site).

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?

Explicitly indicates when to use (both kinds of scan_url scans) and when not to (for full-site runs, use get_run_findings instead). Also explains the difference in output size (top-5 sample vs full findings) based on scan type.

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