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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns (why it is a risk, how to fix it, false positive considerations), which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. While not exhaustive, it gives sufficient insight into the tool's behavior for a simple explanation 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists the key return items. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 one simple parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and returned content. It is not overly complex; a 4 reflects that it is complete enough for this simple tool, though it might benefit from a note about expected input format (e.g., must be a valid finding ID from a scan).

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (findingId), describing it as a rule/finding ID with examples. The description adds no new semantic detail beyond echoing 'rule ID'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: explaining a specific security finding by rule ID. It uses a specific verb ('Explains') and resource ('specific security finding'), and the focus on a single finding distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_android_security_checks or analyze_android_project.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you have a specific finding ID and need an explanation of risk, fix, and false positives. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the sibling context makes the intended use clear. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, hence not a 5.

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