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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Draft only; NEVER submits' — a meaningful clarification that the tool writes nothing externally even though it constructs an incident record. The added constraint 'Use only user-confirmed facts' is a genuine behavioral rule an agent could otherwise violate; what's missing is any note about persistence of the draft or prerequisite state of scan_id.

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?

Front-loaded with the highest-value fact (draft-only, never submits), then a compact field map. It is dense and slightly run-on in the incident field enumeration, but no sentence is filler given the zero schema coverage.

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 4-parameter tool with a deep nested incident object, no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description supplies enough structure for a correct call. Gaps remain on return value (what a 'draft' looks like back) and on the identity/authorization parameters, but nothing essential to constructing the payload is absent.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and largely delivers: it spells out the kind values (which the schema lacks an enum for), the required discovered_at ISO time, and the nested organization / personal_info field shapes including the leaked enum. It leaves workspace_token and scan_id undocumented, which keeps it from a 5.

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 conveys a specific resource (an incident/compliance report) and an explicit scope restriction ('Draft only; NEVER submits'), and enumerates the three report kinds (assess / incident-24h / privacy-72h) that define what the tool produces. It stops short of naming the sibling it differs from (generate_report), so an agent must infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

'Draft only; NEVER submits' and 'Use only user-confirmed facts' give useful operating constraints, and the kind values imply the triggering scenario (24h/72h regulatory clocks). However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over generate_report or when the tool should be avoided, leaving routing to inference.

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