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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, it discloses rate-limit behavior ('Uses one API call; honor recommended polling interval and Retry-After'), billing semantics (preserve billable/metering values, don't assume payment), status handling (released vs withheld/failed), and a security note on untrusted returned text. This is substantial behavioral context the annotations cannot convey.

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 usage trigger, then packs billing, polling, status, and security constraints into a compact set of sentences that each carry information. Slightly dense and run-on, but there is little wasted text.

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 and a rich procedural tool, the description still conveys status semantics (released/withheld/failed) and billing values, and annotations cover the safety profile. It is nearly complete, though the returned assessment's overall structure is only lightly sketched.

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?

Only one parameter exists with 0% schema description coverage, but the schema pattern ('^ra_[a-f0-9]{32}$') supplies the format. The description calls it a 'saved assessment ID' but adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond that, so it compensates only partially for the coverage gap.

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 ('Read one saved assessment ID') and explicitly disambiguates from the creating sibling with 'no new report is created.' An agent can distinguish it from scanverity_request_assessment without opening either schema.

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 clear trigger conditions: 'after requesting Scanverity research' and 'when the user asks for an existing report or its progress,' which implicitly routes to scanverity_request_assessment for new work. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tool as the low-cost path, so it falls just below full marks.

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