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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so description credit goes to extra context. The description adds a key behavioral trait: it never requests campaign/threat-intel notes and keeps templates/guidelines local for AI analysis, which is valuable operational transparency beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then parameter usage plus a data-handling note. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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 retrieval tool with one optional param and no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter, and data privacy. It doesn't detail response structure, but the input schema and description together sufficiently imply the content (primary frameworks + optional sibling blocks).

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 description covers 100% of the parameter with clear meaning and default. The description reinforces this by showing how to skip sibling blocks, adding slight clarification. However, it doesn't add substantial new semantics beyond the schema.

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: retrieving Lenny Zeltser's CTI frameworks and optional sibling frames. It specifies the resource (CTI frameworks) and distinguishes primary vs sibling, making it distinct from sibling tools like ir_get_frameworks or cti_get_guidelines.

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 explains the optional parameter behavior ('Pass include_siblings: false to skip sibling blocks') but does not explicitly compare this tool to alternatives or state when not to use it. Usage is implied by the name and context, but no exclusions are given.

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