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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the server 'never requests your assessment notes or report' and keeps data local, plus it clarifies the meaning of sibling blocks. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 long, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence serves a distinct function: purpose and parameter behavior/privacy. No wasted words.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it returns (frameworks plus siblings), how to control siblings, and a key privacy behavioral note. No output schema is present, but the return is self-evident from the purpose.

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 schema covers 100% of the single parameter (include_siblings) with a clear description. The description adds the instruction to pass 'include_siblings: false' to skip blocks, which slightly reinforces but does not significantly extend the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'Lenny Zeltser's Security Assessment frameworks' and distinguishes between primary and sibling frames, which differentiates it from the many other get_frameworks tools (cti, ir, malware, vuln). The verb 'Get' plus the specific resource makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 context that the primary frameworks are 'the brief structurally derives from' and explains the optional sibling frames, giving some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when to use this instead of others, so it falls short of a 5.

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