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

Annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns a JSON alignment document and costs $0.01 per call, which informs the agent about output format and billing.

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, information-dense sentences with no waste. The action and resource are front-loaded, followed by output, compliance, and cost details that all earn their 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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter), an existing output schema, and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description is complete. It covers what is returned, compliance relevance, and cost, so an agent has what it needs to call 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?

The single 'format' parameter is fully documented in the schema with enum 'json' and a clear description, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning, which matches the baseline expectation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve NIST AI 200-2 TEVV-Athlon mapping for IATP, ABV, FACT, and Lean 4.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from the sibling generate_tevv_report.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_tevv_report. The compliance references imply a context, but no exclusionary or selection guidance is provided for an agent to choose confidently.

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