List findings from a scan batch

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

Annotations already mark this read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those hints: it returns lightweight rows, pages via a cursor, and—crucially—never filters UNKNOWN severity findings, with a rationale. This non-obvious filter behavior could change an agent's interpretation of results, so disclosing it is high value.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the main action and sibling distinction appear in the first sentence, and the second paragraph justifies a crucial filter exception without repetition. Every sentence earns its place.

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 paginated list tool with a rich output schema and full parameter documentation, this description covers the workflow context, row granularity, and a key behavioral exception. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing; the output schema presumably handles return-field details.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the UNKNOWN severity behavior with an underlying reason and by characterizing the return rows as lightweight, which informs how an agent should interpret limit and cursor parameters. It does not systematically enrich every parameter, but the minSeverity context goes beyond the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Pages through findings from a previous scan_iac call.' It also distinguishes itself from get_finding by noting it returns lightweight rows rather than full detail, which differentiates it from a key sibling without opening schemas.

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 explicitly ties usage to a prerequisite ('from a previous scan_iac call') and routes the agent to get_finding when full detail is needed. The UNKNOWN severity caveat also tells the agent when not to expect filtering behavior, providing actionable selection guidance.

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