Bulk export findings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is READ-ONLY, highlights high latency on large deployments, and notes the search parameter is a single-term substring. It also explains that structured export filters are not exposed due to undocumented filter shapes. This is meaningful behavioral context, though it doesn't cover authentication or rate limits.

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 well-organized with a clear purpose statement, a bulleted alternatives section, and a final notes section. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value. The structure makes it scannable. Minor redundancy in mentioning 'READ-ONLY' twice (once in text, once as bullet) but overall efficient.

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?

Given the output schema exists, return values don't need explanation. The description covers purpose, usage alternatives, search limitations, latency, and read-only behavior, which is thorough for a bulk export tool. It omits pagination details and start_at usage, but those might be in the output schema. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and use the tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains `search` (single-term substring) and why structured filters are absent. It does not explain `limit` or `start_at` semantics, leaving half the parameters undocumented. The description adds some value for search but is insufficient for the other parameters.

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: 'Bulk export of FINDING INSTANCES' with a precise definition ('one record per (vulnerability or policy violation x affected asset)'). It also distinguishes from siblings by comparing with get_asset_vulnerabilities and query_policy_findings, clarifying scope as all findings across the deployment.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Choosing between the finding tools' section that names alternatives, describes when to use each (start with get_asset_vulnerabilities for a specific asset, query_policy_findings for filtered policy findings), and positions this tool for bulk offline analysis/reporting. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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