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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clarifies that tier 'category-5' maps to CNSA 2.0/national-security systems, which is helpful, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, describe any side effects, or disclose the return format. 'Recommend' implies non-mutating, but this is not explicit.

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 purpose. Every sentence provides actionable guidance without fluff.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description does not specify the nature of the returned recommendation or handle edge cases like both algorithm and context being provided. The basic usage is clear, but an agent may lack details on expected output and parameter exclusivity.

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 100% as all parameters are described in the schema. The description adds minor value by providing algorithm examples (RSA, ECDH, ECDSA) and clarifying the 'or' relationship between algorithm and context, but these are largely redundant with the schema's stated semantics. Baseline 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's function with a specific verb+resource: 'Recommend a post-quantum / hybrid migration'. This distinguishes it from sibling action-oriented tools like 'remediate_findings' or 'apply_verified_patch', which focus on execution rather than recommendation.

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 conveys when to use the tool by defining its purpose and gives clear invocation context: provide an 'algorithm' or 'context', and set 'tier' for CNSA 2.0. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear given the sibling tools' action-oriented nature.

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