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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it surfaces cross-cutting criteria, anti-patterns, and inline mcpHandoffs pointers, and explains that the server never requests vulnerability notes and keeps the brief local for analysis. No contradiction with 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 three sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. Each sentence contributes: purpose, contents/outputs, and privacy behavior. It is slightly dense, but no sentence is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description adequately indicates what is returned (per-theme criteria, cross-cutting criteria, anti-patterns, pointers). It is complete enough for a moderate-complexity tool, and the privacy note adds important context for this type of server.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters. The description adds extra meaning by giving a concrete example ('focus=tone surfaces rating_score_writing') and explaining the focus-driven behavior beyond the enum list. This goes beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 'Get Lenny Zeltser's expert criteria for reviewing an existing Vulnerability Investigation Brief' – a specific verb, resource, and expert source. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vuln_get_guidelines by naming Zeltser and the review focus, and by listing unique outputs (per-theme criteria, anti-patterns, mcpHandoffs pointers).

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 usage for reviewing existing Vulnerability Investigation Briefs and gives an example of focus-triggered handoffs, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like vuln_get_guidelines or other review tools. There's no when-not-to-use guidance, so it stays at implied usage.

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