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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results include pass/fail/partial status per control (valuable since there is no output schema), but says nothing about caching/freshness behavior, which matters given the force_refresh parameter.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the framework list and the output status vocabulary front-loaded. Nothing needs trimming.

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 3-parameter read-only mapping tool with no output schema, the description covers what gets mapped and the shape of results, which is the essential part. It leaves open which scan findings are used as input and how it differs from map_supply_chain, both of which an agent would want before invoking it.

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%, so domain, format, and force_refresh are already documented in the schema, including the format enum. The description adds no further meaning about parameter effects (e.g. what 'compact' omits or when a refresh is warranted), so 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 ('Map') and resource ('scan findings to compliance frameworks') and enumerates the exact frameworks supported (NIST 800-177, PCI DSS 4.0, SOC 2, CIS Controls). That enumeration distinguishes it from the similarly named sibling map_supply_chain, though the description never explicitly contrasts the two.

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 the tool runs after scan findings exist, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. must a scan have completed first?), and no alternatives such as map_supply_chain or assess_spoofability when a different mapping is needed.

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