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

On top of readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses a great deal of behavior beyond them: a 20-distinct-ID cap inside a 24,000-byte budget with deferred IDs named, whole-section omission marked with size and 'kind partial', completion guarantees for explicit sections including oversized records, and precise rejection rules (control characters, non-ID items over 150 characters). This is exactly the context an agent needs to interpret a partial result rather than retry blindly.

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?

Nearly every clause carries information, but the middle sentences are long semicolon-chained runs that are hard to parse on first read, and the example-paging semantics are restated across the description and multiple schema fields. The single most important fact (batch limits) is front-loaded, but overall structure is dense rather than crisp.

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?

With an output schema present, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description rounds out the remaining gaps: budget behavior, partial-result semantics, rejection conditions, default vs explicit section behavior, and example paging. An agent can call this correctly and interpret truncated responses without further documentation.

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% and the property descriptions already repeat much of the budget and example-paging semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by explaining the interaction rules -- that example parameters are ignored under explicit sections, that paging is source-ordered and language-filtered, and that the page is outlined with its size and a re-call -- which the schema only states piecemeal.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource plus concrete accepted ID formats (CWE-79, CWE79, 79), and closes by clarifying that categories are organizational entries rather than root causes. Sibling differentiation is only implicit -- it notes that a view or CAPEC ID lands in notFound, which gestures at cwe_get_view / cwe_get_attack_pattern without naming them.

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 establishes clear operating context: defaults when sections is omitted, an outline for an empty array, and that explicit sections without examples ignore the example parameters. It also functions as a soft exclusion by stating that views and CAPEC IDs return in notFound with recovery guidance, but it never explicitly routes the agent to cwe_search_weaknesses for discovering IDs.

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