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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses that every change creates a new version, that writes go to a tamper-evident 'pqc-inventory' log, and that an organization API key is required. These are meaningful operational facts (versioning, audit trail, auth) not derivable from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by behavior and prerequisites. No filler, though the scanner/agent sentence is somewhat loose and could be merged.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the mutation semantics, versioning, logging, and auth needs, while the schema fully specifies the nested system record. Nothing essential for a correct call appears missing.

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 both parameters (actor, system) are already fully documented, including the nested asset fields and the fact that the inventory is replaced. The description only adds the 'one system' scoping and the actor types, which the schema already covers.

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 and resource ('Record the cryptographic inventory (CBOM) of one system') with the domain purpose (post-quantum migration). An agent can distinguish this write from read/export siblings like gov_pqc_inventory and gov_pqc_export, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Scanners and agents can submit results directly' gives a caller profile, and the API-key requirement sets a precondition. However, it never says when to use this versus gov_pqc_inventory or gov_pqc_plan, nor any exclusions, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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