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

In addition to the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: 'This server never requests your campaign or threat-intel notes and instructs your AI to keep them local—templates and guidelines flow to your AI for local analysis.' This adds privacy/context beyond what annotations already convey and clarifies the tool's non-collector nature.

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, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the privacy behavior succinctly stated in the second. Every clause earns its place with 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?

The tool is simple (2 optional params, no output schema), and the description covers the main deliverables (per-theme criteria, cross-cutting criteria, anti-patterns, focus-driven analysis) plus privacy behavior. It lacks an explicit note on return format, but given the simplicity and annotations, this is adequate without being exhaustive.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both 'focus' and 'sections' parameters with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'focus-driven writing analysis' adds minimal extra meaning, so it aligns with the baseline of 3 for well-documented schemas.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Get Lenny Zeltser's expert criteria for reviewing an existing CTI report or brief.' It clearly distinguishes this CTI-specific tool from sibling report-review tools (e.g., assessment_review_report, ir_review_report) by emphasizing the CTI domain and named expert.

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 the tool is for use when reviewing existing CTI reports and provides the behavioral note that it never requests campaign notes, guiding the agent on safe usage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria relative to sibling tools, so it stops short of full guidance.

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