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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior context by disclosing the synchronous-vs-batch dispatch modes, but says nothing about how the batch path reports back, latency, or any limits.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the mode-switching rule follows immediately, so an agent can read the whole contract at a glance.

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?

Read-only annotations and a fully documented schema cover most of the contract, but with no output schema the description should explain what each mode returns. The batch path is described only as 'dispatches,' leaving the agent unsure whether it gets results, a job handle, or nothing back.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: presence of threat_id switches the tool from batch to synchronous single-threat verification. It also clarifies that verification runs against uploaded code or AST, tying to code_content, though scan_id and repository_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 verb (verify) and resource (STRIDE/LINDDUN threats in a scan's uploaded code or AST), which clearly separates it from generate_threat_model and code_review_scan. However, it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts itself with the threat-modeling and remediation tools, so the differentiation is implicit.

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 second sentence gives an explicit decision rule: supplying threat_id yields a synchronous verdict, omitting it dispatches batch verification across diagram threats. That is a genuine when-to-use branch, but there is no guidance on prerequisites, when not to use it, or which sibling to pick for related tasks.

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