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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds that the tool returns a WORM-sealed verdict, implying immutability, and mentions authentication needs. This goes beyond annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences cover purpose, signals, outputs, and requirements with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with action and key 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 output schema exists and parameters are well-described, the description provides enough context for agent selection and invocation. It explains output structure and authentication, though additional detail on when to use over siblings could improve completeness.

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% with per-parameter descriptions. The description adds context on how parameters are used together (AbuseIPDB, internal signals, output fields), enhancing meaning beyond the schema alone.

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 uses specific verbs and resources: 'Assess fraud risk' with concrete signals (AbuseIPDB, velocity, account age, withdrawal patterns) and outputs (risk_score, signals, verdict). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'forcedream_security_scan' and 'forcedream_score_lead' by focusing on fraud risk assessment.

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 implicitly indicates usage for fraud risk assessment but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives or when not to use. It mentions requiring authentication, which is a precondition.

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