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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait beyond annotations: 'This server never requests your assessment notes or report and instructs your AI to keep them local—the templates and guidelines flow to your AI for local analysis.' This is not covered by readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints and adds important privacy/context. It also mentions providing a pointer to another tool. No contradiction with 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and content details, and efficiently packs in the list of review items, groups, and the privacy note without fluff. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the tool's nature (returning criteria/guidelines) and rich schema/annotations, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns (17 items, five groups, cross-cutting criteria, severity model, anti-patterns), how it interacts with data (local analysis), and points to a related tool. No output schema exists, but the return content is adequately described.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters (focus and sections), including enum values and explanations. The tool description does not add additional meaning about parameter usage beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 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's purpose: 'Get Lenny Zeltser's expert criteria for reviewing an existing security assessment report or brief.' It lists specific content (17 items, five groups, cross-cutting criteria, severity model, anti-patterns) and differentiates from sibling review tools by focusing on assessment reports. It also points to rating_score_writing as a separate tool, clarifying its scope.

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 implies when to use it: for reviewing an existing assessment report or brief, and mentions an alternative (rating_score_writing) for a numeric score. It also clarifies a privacy behavior (server never requests notes/report) which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with all sibling review tools.

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