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

Annotations already indicate idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description's job is lighter. It adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: the assessment is immutable, it returns a browser approval URL, and crucially, it never contacts the target. This helps an agent understand side effects and the approval workflow.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and output, followed by a critical behavioral caveat. No fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

This is a complex tool with seven parameters, a nested coverage object, and no output schema, yet the description only mentions the approval URL. It does not explain what happens after approval, how the assessment relates to launch_assessment, or what the required fields mean. An agent would lack enough context to correctly prepare and complete the workflow.

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 only 14%, so the description must compensate, but it only vaguely implies assetId via 'verified stored asset.' It does not explain coverage rules, interactionPolicy, depth, boundaries, idempotencyKey, or their relationships. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to construct a valid request.

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 a specific action ('Create an immutable assessment'), identifies the resource ('for a verified stored asset'), and names the key output ('browser approval URL'). The final sentence, 'This never contacts the target,' helps distinguish it from execution-oriented siblings like launch_assessment.

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 useful context for when to use the tool: the asset must already be verified and stored, and the tool only prepares an assessment rather than contacting the target. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use launch_assessment instead,' but the behavioral contrast with execution tools is clear enough.

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