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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether this is a read-only guide, whether it mutates configuration, what the output looks like, or what prerequisites exist. The single parenthetical '(security-guide)' is the only hint and it is not enough.

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?

It is short, but short by omission rather than by discipline — a name-prefix plus a tag is not a front-loaded explanation of anything. There is no wasted prose because there is almost no prose.

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 tool with an unannotated enum parameter, no output schema, and a dense family of near-identical platform siblings, the description supplies none of the information needed to select or 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?

The schema has one parameter (backendMode with an enum of cloud/self-hosted/local) at 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions it. With a non-zero parameter count and zero coverage, the description must compensate and does not.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name plus the tag '(security-guide)'. It gives no verb, no resource scope, and no indication of what the tool actually produces, leaving the agent to guess from the identifier alone.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever about when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (e.g. security.proxy.rooms under other platforms, or shared::security.proxy.rooms) is the right alternative. Nothing routes the agent.

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