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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). Beyond that, the description discloses data provenance and cadence ('daily cloud scans', 'code scans'), the shape of returns (checks passed/failed, controls tested/failing), and the unit convention for rates (percentages 0-100), which the annotations cannot convey. Pagination/limits remain unstated.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what it returns, how to narrow by framework, and the rate units. What the tool is leads, invocation guidance and units follow — no filler.

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 and no required params, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does describe the key contents (per-framework checks/controls plus code-scan metrics). It is close to complete, though it doesn't clarify how scan_id and diagram_id scope the results or whether cloud and code-scan data are merged or separate sections.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine semantics beyond the schema: the `framework` argument doesn't just filter, it switches the view to that framework's most-failing controls. That behavioral effect on output is not in the schema. scan_id and diagram_id get no added explanation.

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 resource and scope: 'Company-level compliance posture: per-framework posture from the daily cloud scans... plus threat and control metrics from code scans.' An agent can tell it is a read-only aggregate view. It stops short of naming how it differs from close siblings like get_cloud_compliance or get_framework_coverage, leaving some ambiguity about which aggregate to pick.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description gives one concrete invocation ('Pass `framework` ... to get that framework's most-failing controls'), which is a param hint more than a when-to-use rule. It never says when to prefer this over get_cloud_compliance, get_framework_coverage, or compliance_scan.

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