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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a meaningful trait: 'The ruleId is resolved against the core detector set, so library and config rules explain correctly.' However, it does not disclose side effects, return format, error behavior, or what happens if neither parameter is provided. This is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and immediately follows with actionable parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey enough context. It covers purpose and parameters but does not describe what the explanation will contain (e.g., remediation steps, affected components) or failure modes. For a read-only explain tool, this is a moderate gap.

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 adds concrete examples for ruleId and algorithm and clarifies the relationship between them ('and/or'). It also explains the resolution behavior of ruleId, which adds meaning beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Explain a quantakrypto finding and its post-quantum remediation.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings that apply patches, triage, or list rules. The inclusion of example ruleId and algorithm values further reinforces the intended purpose.

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 provides explicit input guidance: 'Provide a ruleId and/or an algorithm.' It also explains that ruleId is resolved against the core detector set, which clarifies when the tool works. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over alternatives like get_fix_examples or remediate_findings, nor does it state when not to use it.

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