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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that the server 'never requests your incident notes' and instructs the AI to keep them local, which is crucial for privacy-conscious callers. No contradiction exists.

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 concise (two sentences), front-loaded with the main purpose, then the variant distinction, then the privacy note. Every sentence adds value without 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 simple no-parameter getter, the description is complete: it identifies the resource, differentiates from the long-form template, and explains the privacy behavior. Given the rich annotations and empty schema, no additional context is necessary.

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 the description need not explain parameter meanings. The schema coverage is 100% (empty properties), and the description adds no param details because none are needed. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and no extra info is required.

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 gets 'Lenny Zeltser's IR one-page executive brief template', identifying the exact resource and purpose. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `ir_get_template` by noting it's the 'Standalone variant' for callers wanting only the brief, not the long-form report.

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 tool `ir_get_template` and explains when to use this variant ('for callers that only want the brief without the long-form report'). It also provides a privacy guideline: 'This server never requests your incident notes and instructs your AI to keep them local', which helps agents decide when to use this tool versus others.

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