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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent hints. The description adds the heuristic nature ('Indicative', 'Heuristic only') and indicates the output format (counts and slug examples). This goes beyond the annotations, though it does not detail limitations beyond the heuristic caveat.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the core function, and the second adds a necessary caveat and pointer to a more advanced tool. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema, the description clarifies the return types (covered/partial/gap counts and slug examples) and the heuristic nature. It could have mentioned potential error scenarios or exactly how the heuristic works, but for a read-only, idempotent tool with 2 parameters, it is sufficiently complete.

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 provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, including details about the company_profile nested object and target_framework enum. The description states the high-level purpose but adds no new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already defines, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 compliance gaps, listing specific inputs (company profile, target framework) and the output (covered/partial/gap counts and slug examples). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from siblings like generate_policy and map_controls.

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 usage context: it is an indicative, heuristic tool, and it explicitly points to Pyxis for severity-ranked gap registers. However, it does not directly compare against sibling tools such as search_controls or map_controls, so it falls short of a full when/when-not guidance.

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