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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds the context that it is a follow-up verification step after remediation, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not go deeper into output behavior or any special side effects, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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?

The description is two concise sentences front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by explicit usage conditions. No wasted words; every sentence adds meaning.

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?

The tool has a clear post-fix verification purpose, and the description covers when to use it and what it does. With annotations providing safety attributes and the schema covering all parameters, the description is complete for this tool's complexity. No output schema exists, so return values are not expected to be documented here.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, including enums and examples, so the description does not need to compensate. The schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds no parameter-specific details, so a baseline score of 3 is warranted.

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 uses a specific verb ('re-check') and resource ('security control') and clearly states the purpose is to confirm remediation after applying a fix, distinguishing from initial inspection tools. It effectively communicates the tool's role.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use ('only when a fix has already been applied') and when not to use ('not for initial inspection'), providing clear exclusion criteria. This guides the agent away from using it for initial scans.

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