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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions setting 'log=true' to record usage, without explaining side effects, whether it is read-only or mutating, what happens when 'log' is false, or any requirements. The description is nearly silent on behavioral traits beyond the parameter hint.

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 concise and not verbose, but it is under-specified. Two sentences convey only a fragment of the tool's functionality. While it avoids waste, it lacks essential details, making it only modestly structured.

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 annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain return values, parameter relationships, or typical usage workflows. The agent would have to guess at most of the tool's operation.

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 0% – none of the six parameters (reason, used_by, account_id, approved_by, duration_minutes) are described in the schema or the description. The description only mentions 'log' but doesn't define its default or semantics. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 identifies the tool as 'Emergency access logging' and provides a specific instruction ('Set log=true to record usage'), making its primary purpose clear. It names the resource (emergency access) and differentiates from sibling tools like privileged_audit and access_review by focusing on logging rather than analysis or review.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only hint is setting 'log=true' to record usage, but there is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. Siblings like privileged_audit are not referenced, leaving the agent without contextual direction.

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