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

Adds genuine context beyond the annotations: it returns immediately with a run_id, executes in the background, and requires the test:run scope. The requirement to poll get_assessment_status is behavior an agent could not infer. Minor gap: with destructiveHint=true, the description never explains what side effect or persistent artifact a run creates.

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?

Front-loads the core action, then stacks guidance, side effects, and the auth requirement in a logical order with no filler. The e-dash-heavy sentences are dense and slightly long, but every clause adds information an agent needs.

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 two-param, open-world trigger tool with an output schema, the description covers initiation semantics, async behavior, the follow-up polling tool, category constraints, rejection behavior, and the required scope. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load and largely does: it explains that categories are taxonomy keys discovered via list_categories, that they are agent-only and rejected as invalid_argument if out of scope. It leaves model_id's format (which target identifier) implicit, relying on the phrase 'one of your targets'.

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 and resource ('trigger a security assessment run') and scopes it to 'one of your targets, an agent or an MCP server'. An agent can immediately tell what the tool does and what it operates on, and can distinguish it from the read-side siblings like get_assessment_status or list_runs.

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 says to call list_categories to discover valid keys, that an out-of-lens key is rejected as invalid_argument, that MCP server runs take no categories, and to poll get_assessment_status afterward. Covers when to use, how to prepare, and what to do next.

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