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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is in the response behavior: score out of 100, a red/yellow/green zone, prioritized gaps, and a link that replays the same answers on drxinfra.ru. It also discloses scoring parity with the public site, which matters for trust in the output. The only omission is any statement about partial answers, which is left to the schema.

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?

It is a single, front-loaded sentence-pair with no filler; every clause (weights, hints/fixes, score, zone, gaps, link) conveys a distinct behavior. It is dense and reads as a run-on, but nothing is redundant.

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 a nested parameter object and no output schema, the description fully specifies both call modes and the shape of each response (question list vs. score/zone/gaps/link). An agent can execute the whole workflow without further inference.

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 nested object already documents the y/p/n/u semantics and that unanswered questions do not count. The description's contribution is the mode switch (omit answers = questionnaire, include answers = score), which is meaningful but modest beyond what the schema already carries.

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 names the exact resource (security self-assessment of a Directum RX installation) and the mechanism (22 weighted questions across backups, passwords, network exposure, updates, TLS, accounts, logs). It is unmistakable against the siblings (component_versions, find_error, size_rx, upgrade_checklist), none of which overlap in scope.

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?

It gives an explicit two-phase protocol: call without answers to fetch the questions with weights, hints and fixes; ask the user; then call with answers to get the score. It also states the intended ordering (ask before scoring), which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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