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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond that: large advisories return an outline instead of the full document, republished vendor advisories contain the originating vendor's text, and every response reports the source URL and attribution. These behaviors would not be predictable from annotations or schema alone.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core purpose and contents, overflow behavior, vendor attribution behavior, source reporting, and the sibling search tool. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids filler 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral and usage context: what content is returned, how the outline/overflow works, source attribution, and how to find advisory IDs. No critical operational gap remains for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining how the sections parameter behaves: omitting it returns the whole document, or an outline when the document overflows the inline budget. It also ties sections to the outline's naming, which helps an agent map a prior response to a re-call.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read one CISA industrial control system advisory in full.' It then enumerates the concrete contents (affected products, per-CVE CVSS, remediations, sectors, revision history), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search tool cisa_search_ics_advisories. An agent can tell what this tool does and what it returns without opening the schema.

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 explicitly routes the agent to cisa_search_ics_advisories for finding advisory IDs. It also gives operational guidance for large advisories: expect an outline instead of the full document and re-call with the specific sections needed. This is practical, actionable usage context rather than a generic statement.

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