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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core check-and-flag behavior and adds pricing information ($0.25 USDC per call), but it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, side effects, or failure behavior. This is adequate but leaves important behavioral details unspecified.

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 concise sentences: the first states the purpose, the second states the cost. There is no fluff, and the most important information is front-loaded. Every part 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?

Despite the simple one-parameter schema, the description is incomplete for an agent expecting to invoke the tool. There is no output schema and no description of what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a report, or errors), and no guidance on how this relates to sibling security tools. An agent would not know what to do with the result or when to choose this over alternatives.

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?

The input schema's description of 'task' is generic ('Task/query text for this SKU'), but the tool description adds meaning by clarifying that the task concerns a counterparty's stated security posture. This helps an agent infer what to put in the parameter, going beyond the placeholder schema text.

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 checks a counterparty agent's stated security posture against the MASSAT governance framework and flags invalid claims. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like security.massat-audit by focusing on conformance of stated claims rather than a general audit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as security.massat-audit or security.enterprise-audit. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints beyond the general purpose, so an agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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