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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already indicate non-destructive read-only behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it never invents a confidence score and does not inspect code, providing clarity beyond what annotations convey.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the main output categories. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates all expected outputs (risk tier, checks, scenarios, etc.) and explicitly states what it does not produce. Given the parameter count and constraints, this is fully informative for an AI 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed enum descriptions and constraints for all parameters. The tool description adds overall context but no additional per-parameter meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as transforming change characteristics into specific outputs (risk tier, checks, etc.) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it does not inspect code and is used before implementation/review.

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 states 'Use before implementation or review' and clarifies what the tool does not do (inspect code, invent confidence score). While it doesn't directly compare to sibling tools, the context signals provide sibling names, and the guidance is clear enough for correct invocation.

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