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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds context about the prerequisite ('completed STRIDE analysis steps') and mentions that returns include severity ratings and mitigations, which is useful beyond the annotations but not deeply behavioral (e.g., no auth, rate limits, or error-handling nuances).

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 no redundant phrasing. Front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by example queries and a summary of return content. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage triggers, return content, and a prerequisite (completed STRIDE steps). The schema handles parameter semantics, annotations handle safety, and the output schema presumably handles return structure. Nothing significant is missing.

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 the workflow_id parameter has a rich description in the schema itself ('as returned by start_workflow. Recover a lost id with list_workflows.'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage 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?

The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Review') and resource ('threats identified during a threat-modeling workflow'). It also provides example natural-language queries ('what threats were found'), which helps the agent map user intent to the tool. This differentiates it from sibling tools like start_workflow or get_progress by focusing on the threat output.

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 says 'Use this when someone asks ...' with concrete example phrases, giving clear context for when the tool is appropriate. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to distinguish it from siblings without needing an explicit alternative list.

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