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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating 'No credential needed' (auth requirement) and 'never inventing a failure for one the scanner did not see' (reliability guarantee). These are behavioral details not present in the schema or annotations.

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 front-loaded with the trigger phrase and then enumerates the outputs. It is a single, long sentence but each clause adds substantive information. It could be split into clearer sentences, but it remains readable and focused.

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 tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains both inputs and outputs: it lists the output components (current state, implementations, remediation, commands, decline scenarios) and notes the credential requirement. Minor gaps include error handling or specific edge cases, but these are not critical for an agent to call the 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 each parameter already has a description. The description references 'requirement id' and 'classification' but does not add additional nuance beyond the schema. The optional 'provider' parameter is not mentioned, but the schema already documents it. The description does not compensate for any gaps given full coverage.

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 states a specific action: planning a fix for a production finding from the TrustyCap CLI. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on the remediation pathway rather than discovery or listing. The title and description together convey the exact resource and operation.

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 opens with an explicit trigger: 'Use this when you are holding a finding from... and need to fix it.' This provides clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it lacks the full when-not/alternatives guidance.

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