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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the server never requests the user's campaign or threat-intel notes and instructs the AI to keep them local, meaning templates flow to the AI for local analysis. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's privacy behavior.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence, and every subsequent sentence adds distinct value (differentiation and privacy behavior). There is no redundancy or filler.

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 zero-parameter, read-only template retrieval tool, the description is complete: it identifies the specific template, differentiates from the main variant, and explains privacy behavior. Even without an output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what the agent needs for selection and invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not waste words on parameters, which 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 function: 'Get Lenny Zeltser's CTI one-page executive brief template.' It distinguishes from the sibling `cti_get_template` by explicitly labeling itself a 'standalone variant' for callers wanting only the brief without the long-form report, so there is no ambiguity about 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 explicitly names the alternative: 'Standalone variant of `cti_get_template` for callers that only want the brief without the long-form report.' This tells the agent exactly when to choose this tool over its primary sibling. It also adds a privacy guideline: the server never requests campaign or threat-intel notes and instructs the AI to keep them local, which informs usage in sensitive contexts.

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