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

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent behaviors, lowering the burden. The description adds that outputs include resilience scores, regulatory gaps, and mitigation recommendations with enforcement references. It does not disclose deeper details like computational cost or simulation methodology, but there is no contradiction with annotations.

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 two-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded with the primary action. The second sentence adds target audience and output highlights, though some output details may duplicate the output schema. Overall, it is concise and well-structured.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides a clear purpose, target audience, and input examples. It does not explain every parameter or async behavior, but those are partially covered by the schema. The description is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 only 17% (only async has a description), so the description must compensate. It lists a few example inputs (ICT service type, duration, impact radius) and entity profile, but omits existingMitigations and does not explain enum values, ranges, or constraints. This is inadequate compensation for the low schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool assesses DORA operational resilience by simulating ICT failure scenarios for financial entities, specifically under Article 25. This is a specific verb+resource with a distinct scope, and it differentiates from sibling 'dora_metrics_deep_dive' by focusing on stress testing rather than metrics analysis.

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 identifies the target users (legal/compliance teams) and regulatory context (DORA Article 25), giving a clear when-to-use signal. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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