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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it states the server 'never requests your incident notes' and 'instructs your AI to keep them local', plus a version note ('IR 1.5.0+') for the brief variant. This enriches transparency without contradicting 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 concise, with only three sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains parameter usage, and the third provides a privacy guarantee. No redundant or filler content. Front-loaded and effective.

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 (one optional enum parameter, read-only, no output schema), and the description adequately covers its purpose, parameter choices, and behavioral nuances. The privacy note is especially valuable given the sensitive IR context. Nothing critical is missing, making the description complete for an agent.

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 schema already describes the 'kind' parameter with full enum coverage (100%). The description adds meaning by specifying the default value ('report — default for backward compatibility') and version availability ('IR 1.5.0+'), which are not present in the schema. This extra context justifies a score above the 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's purpose: 'Get Lenny Zeltser's structured incident response template' with specific scope ('Covers all critical IR sections with field-by-field guidance'). The verb 'Get' and the specific resource distinguish it from sibling tools like ir_get_brief_template or cti_get_template, establishing clear identity.

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 clear context on how to use the tool, especially the 'kind' parameter with 'report' default and 'brief' option. It also explains the server's privacy behavior (never requests notes, keeps them local). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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