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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral value by defining when an issue counts as resolved versus 'not re-checked' and noting it shares the same passive scan with the same timing and rate limits as macrocyber_exposure_claim.

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 what the tool does and its comparison output before detailing the resolved/not-re-checked distinction. The middle sentence is dense and long, but each part carries non-redundant semantics.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so well, enumerating the comparison categories and the signed exposure claim. Behavior, inputs, and usage context are all covered for a single-parameter read-only tool.

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 goes beyond the schema by explaining provenance of the value ('its report field' from an earlier claim) and confirms either an id or a link is acceptable, adding meaning the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 ('re-check the site of an earlier MacroCyber report') and precisely defines the return ('a fresh signed exposure claim plus a comparison'). It explicitly routes against the sibling by tying the input to 'an earlier macrocyber_exposure_claim result', so an agent can distinguish the two 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('after applying fixes, to confirm they worked and catch anything new') and the alternative source of the input. It also names where the required value comes from (the report field of a prior claim, or a link a person shared).

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