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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description need only add context. It adds that criticality is scored using regulatory sources like EUR-Lex and CNIL decisions, and that outputs include criticality scores and regulatory references. This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent useful behavioral expectations.

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 description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then target audience, then input/output summary. It contains no redundant or filler content. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and usage.

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 a rich input schema (100% coverage), a declared output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to select and invoke the tool. It mentions regulatory sources, intended users, and outputs, which together make the tool's role clear without needing to restate schema details.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description only summarizes that inputs include 'organization identifiers and optional scope filters,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on depth, sector, or async behavior, but the schema already documents these sufficiently.

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: 'Generates a visual dependency map of supply chain relationships under the NIS2 Directive.' It further specifies that it scores criticality based on regulatory sources, which distinguishes it from generic supply chain or vendor risk tools. The mention of being 'Designed for legal and compliance teams' clarifies its intended domain.

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 provides clear context: it is for legal and compliance teams to identify high-risk third-party dependencies under NIS2. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it lacks exclusionary guidance. The intended use case is clear enough to guide an agent.

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