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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does not meet it: it never states that this is a non-mutating read, whether results are paginated or capped, what a 'decision' outcome means, or what happens when no sources are registered. Only the word 'Return' hints at read-only behavior, which is a weak inference rather than a disclosure.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the query surface is not covered: six optional parameters with implicit defaults and no documented filter/limit behavior leaves the agent unable to construct a correct invocation. For a parameterized findings tool with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, this is under-specified.

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?

Six parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. The critical filters (rule_id, decision, severity, source_id, actionable_only) and the limit default are left entirely unspecified, so the agent cannot know valid values or filtering semantics — exactly the compensation gap the description should fill.

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?

States a clear verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('context-poisoning scan results for registered secure-context sources'), so the agent knows it is a read of scan findings scoped to secure-context sources. However, it does not distinguish itself from the many adjacent siblings (e.g. recipes_secure_context_trust_pack, recipes_secure_context_eval_pack, recipes_agentic_source_freshness_watch), leaving the agent to guess among overlapping 'pack' tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus any alternative, no prerequisites (what counts as a 'registered' source), and no exclusions. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the name and the phrase 'registered secure-context sources'.

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