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

Annotations already provide safety hints (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false). The description adds context about what data is returned (names and requirement counts per assurance level), which enhances transparency without contradiction.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no extraneous content. Every sentence justifies its existence.

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 the tool has no parameters, no output schema, and a simple purpose, the description is complete. It tells what to expect (chapters with names and counts) and how to use the result (to pull with asvs_requirements).

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage. Per guidelines, baseline is 4 for no parameters. Description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there is nothing to document.

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 returns a table of contents for OWASP ASVS 5.0 with 17 chapters, names, and requirement counts. It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool asvs_requirements by saying to use this to discover which chapter to pull.

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 includes 'Use to discover which chapter to pull with asvs_requirements', which gives clear guidance on when to use this tool. It does not mention when not to use it, but for this simple read-only tool, it is sufficient.

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