list_findings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: exact counts, bounded pagination, that full affected URL IDs are withheld locally, and that missing data is surfaced via coverage.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the query/ordering/pagination behavior, with no filler. Slightly terse relative to the number of undocumented parameters, but nothing is wasteful.

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 partially compensates by describing counts, URL ID locality and coverage for missing data. It is still incomplete on parameter meaning (auditId, category) and on how filtering/pagination interact with the returned ordering.

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% across 6 parameters. The description clarifies 'section' (matched against the computed finding group section) and implies limit/offset and priority ordering, but says nothing about auditId or the category enum, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 ('Query computed findings') plus a defining attribute (original priority order, bounded pagination). It does not name or distinguish itself from the sibling finding_details, so an agent can't tell from the description alone when to prefer one over the other.

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 implies usage context ('optional section filtering uses the computed finding group section') but gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no prerequisites, and no routing to the sibling finding_details tool that presumably returns richer per-finding data.

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