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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds non-contradicting behavioral context: it analyzes caller-provided data, does not connect to an identity provider, and costs $1 per call. This meaningfully supplements the annotations, though it does not describe return format or rate 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?

The description is three crisp sentences, each adding essential information: the main purpose, the offline behavior/exclusion, and the cost. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity, a well-detailed input schema, and strong annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It clarifies the offline, non-connecting nature and cost. A minor gap is the lack of explicit details about the return value, especially since there is no output schema, but the core usage context is complete enough for an agent.

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 50% (previous_scan_id is documented, users is not). The description partially compensates by mentioning 'user or configuration set you supply' and concepts like 'unenrolled accounts' and 'weak factors such as SMS', which map to schema fields. However, it does not provide detailed parameter-level semantics for the users array or previous_scan_id beyond what the schema already offers.

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 uses a specific verb ('Assess') and resource ('MFA coverage and factor strength'), and clearly scopes the tool to data the caller supplies. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly stating it does not connect to an identity provider, which is a key differentiator among the audit tools.

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 gives clear context: use this when you have a user or configuration set to supply, and not when you need live identity provider access ('it does not connect to an identity provider'). It implies an offline-analysis use case but does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exhaustive when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.

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