All findings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing ordering (most severe first) and flagging that untrusted_evidence is raw host text, which alerts the agent to treat that field as untrusted data.

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 sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with scope and ordering before the return-shape detail. Every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the per-finding shape (fixed title, detail, untrusted_evidence), and the schema covers both optional filters with defaults. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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% and both parameters carry their own descriptions and defaults, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description never mentions min_severity or include_acknowledged, adding no semantics beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Every finding from the rules') plus ordering ('most severe first') and return shape, which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like list_connections, login_activity, and list_listening_ports.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource: an agent can infer this is the enumeration endpoint for findings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of how it relates to scan_summary or explain_process, and no indication that min_severity/include_acknowledged narrow results.

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