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 genuinely new context by disclosing that findings come from a scheduled scan (implying possible staleness) and reaffirms 'this tool never changes anything'. It doesn't state latency, pagination, or freshness window, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the read-only framing, and the long enumeration of finding categories is dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what it can act on. Slightly heavy in one sentence, but no filler or repetition.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the finding categories the agent will receive. Combined with the scan-produced caveat and read-only guarantee, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 (agency_id, include_resolved) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level syntax, defaults, or behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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+resource ('Read-only view of Tango's configuration audit') and then enumerates exactly what the audit surfaces (dormant/unrotated keys, over-scoped agents, plain-HTTP webhooks, stale credentials, duplicate identities, secret-shaped strings). No sibling tool covers security findings, so it is trivially distinguishable.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: 'check and correct your own posture' with two concrete motivating examples (a key you hold should be rotated; your scope is broader than your work). It does not name the corrective siblings (rotate_worker_key, revoke_worker_key) as follow-up actions, so it stops short of explicit alternatives.

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