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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the result ordering ('most shared IOCs first'), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about edge cases such as reports with no shared IOCs or how ties are broken.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the action and the resource, then adds ordering and return content with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

With only two simple parameters, full schema coverage, present annotations and an output schema, the description covers what the tool does and how results are ordered. Only minor gaps remain (zero-overlap behavior, tie-breaking), which are low-risk for this complexity level.

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% and both parameters (report_id with its pattern and example, limit with default and bounds) are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('find'), a specific resource ('other Rösti reports'), and the exact relation criterion ('share IOCs with one report'). It also specifies ordering and payload ('most shared IOCs first, with the shared values'), which distinguishes it cleanly from get_report, search_reports and lookup_ioc siblings.

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 IOC-sharing criterion implies the use case (pivoting from a known report to others), but no sibling is named and no exclusion is stated — an agent must infer that this is not the tool for IOC-level lookups or free-text search. Adequate but implicit.

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