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 by stating that the server never requests incident notes and instructs the AI to keep them local, which is a meaningful privacy guarantee not present in 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 parameter behavior, then a privacy note. Every sentence adds distinct value, and there is no redundant explanation or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity—one optional parameter, no output schema, and explicit read-only/idempotent annotations—the description covers all key aspects: what is retrieved, the optional sibling blocks, how to skip them, and the privacy behavior. This is sufficient for an AI to invoke it correctly.

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 sole parameter include_siblings is fully documented in the schema with a detailed description of the siblingFrames and siblingArtifacts blocks. The tool description adds a brief usage example ('Pass include_siblings: false') but does not significantly enhance the schema's already thorough documentation; hence baseline 3.

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 retrieves Lenny Zeltser's IR frameworks, using the verb 'Get' and naming the specific resource. It also distinguishes between primary frameworks and optional sibling frames, setting it apart from sibling framework tools for other domains (e.g., cti_get_frameworks). This provides unambiguous purpose.

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 provides a clear context: it's for IR frameworks that the brief structurally derives from, implying usage in incident response brief generation. It gives a direct parameter usage instruction ('Pass include_siblings: false to skip sibling blocks') but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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