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

The readOnlyHint annotation already communicates safe read behavior; the description adds that it explains risk findings and recommended action, but does not disclose details like error handling, output format, or prerequisites. It is consistent with the annotation.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. The 'Agent Sprawl Radar:' prefix is slightly extraneous but not detrimental.

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 simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives a basic understanding but lacks context about how the output is presented or how it relates to sibling tools like score_agent.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It identifies the parameter as referring to 'one registry agent,' but does not elaborate on the agent_id format, constraints, or relationship to other entities. Minimal added value.

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 uses the verb 'explain' with the resource 'risk findings and the recommended action' for a single registry agent, making the purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like score_agent or list_high_risk_agents, though 'for one registry agent' implies a singular target.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_high_risk_agents or generate_remediation_plan. The description states only what it does, not the context or exclusions.

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