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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it costs $1 per call and does not connect to an identity provider. These are non-obvious traits that help agents anticipate side effects and dependencies. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences long and highly efficient. It front-loads the primary purpose, then states the data-source limitation and cost. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core purpose, data source, and cost, which is useful, but it lacks details on the return format or output structure despite there being no output schema. It also leaves two parameters underspecified. Given the tool's moderate complexity, additional context about findings or result shape would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is low at 25% (only previous_scan_id is described). The description only vaguely references 'user and role assignments,' which maps to the required 'users' parameter, but it omits any explanation of 'admin_roles' and 'sensitive_permissions.' This leaves key parameter semantics unclear, and the description does little to compensate.

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: 'Review user and role assignments you supply against least-privilege, flagging excessive, stale or orphaned access.' It uses a specific verb, resource, and outcome, and distinguishes itself from sibling audit tools by noting it 'does not connect to an identity provider,' clarifying its offline analysis scope.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: it analyzes caller-supplied data and does not connect to an identity provider. This implies it is suitable for offline analysis of provided assignments, but it stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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