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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false, but the description adds behavior those hints cannot convey: no account or API key required, it reads bundled guidance without contacting a target or running tests, and it explicitly disclaims security/compliance certification. That is real scope and limitation disclosure beyond structured fields.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then routing, then constraints. Every clause carries information an agent needs; there is no boilerplate or repetition of the title.

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 compensates by enumerating what the returned text report contains (risk explanation, labeled prompts, signals to inspect, suggested role, PromptBrake coverage). For a single-enum, read-only tool, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, including lowercase-only and 'ID not title' guidance, so the description adds little. The description re-states 'one OWASP LLM risk ID' but does not enumerate or explain the llm01-llm10 values beyond what the enum already 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?

States a specific verb (Map), a specific resource (one OWASP LLM risk ID), and the exact artifact produced (bundled test guidance: explanation, prompts, signals, role, coverage). It is distinguishable from all three siblings without opening any schema.

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 an explicit trigger ('when planning tests for a risk category') and routes two alternatives by name with their selecting conditions (get_prompt_injection_payloads for attack payloads, build_test_pack for a CI response-check pack). Nothing is left to inference.

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