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

Annotations carry only negative hints (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), so the description shoulders the behavioral burden — and it delivers richly: it states the review 'does not make changes,' is billable, rate-limited per workspace, limited to one in-flight review per project, requires the disclaimer_md to be repeated, and that refusals return ok: false without starting work. None of this contradicts the annotations; it substantially exceeds them.

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 compact yet information-dense; every sentence earns its place — purpose, non-effect, disclaimer obligation, prerequisites, billing, concurrency, refusal behavior, and rate limiting. It is front-loaded with the core purpose before the constraints, and no sentence is filler.

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?

Because the tool has an output schema, the description need not document return values, and it correctly omits them. Everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly — purpose, scope, prerequisites, side effects, limits, and the mandatory disclaimer step — is present. Nothing material is missing.

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 0% and there is one parameter, project_id, whose semantics are essentially self-evident. The description compensates by defining the project eligibility prerequisites (saved framework profile, eligible plan, allowlist) and the source-bound, single-project scope, which tells the agent what kind of project_id is expected. This goes beyond a bare schema but stops short of documenting the field format or type nuances.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource-scope construction: 'Start a source-bound security control gap review for one project.' It disambiguates from the sibling tools run_security_review and run_legal_exposure_review by pinning the subject to 'control gap' and naming the concrete framework contexts (Cyber Essentials, CMMC Level 1/2). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and what it is not.

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 lays out the precondition set explicitly — a saved framework profile, an eligible plan, and operator allowlist placement — so an agent knows when the call is valid. It does not name the sibling alternatives it competes with or give explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the prerequisite list plus the framework context effectively constrains the intended use case.

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