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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, but the description adds crucial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the green/yellow/red classification scheme, that it flags tools with no risk annotations, that it returns a policy, Claude Code permission rules, and an oversight checklist, and explicitly states it reads tool lists only and never calls a tool.

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 dense but well-structured: it front-loads the when-to-use, then input options, then outputs and classification. Every sentence adds distinct value with no repetition, ending with a clear disclaimer.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers purpose, usage, inputs, outputs, classification logic, and behavioral constraints. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed, and the agent has everything needed to invoke 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%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning by explaining that 'url' is an alternative to 'tools' and that 'tools' is a list with name, description, and annotations. It doesn't specify the exact format for Claude Code permission rules or how server_name is used, but it goes beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb (map) and resources (AI agent actions, tools, oversight levels) and clearly distinguishes this from sibling checks like check_app_security or deep_scan_app by focusing on agent governance. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does.

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?

It gives explicit triggers: when someone asks which actions their AI agent may take alone, which need approval, or how to set up oversight/permissions/governance (with EU AI Act example). It also specifies exactly what input to provide: a public MCP server address or a list of tools with name, description, and annotations.

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