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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Check MFA coverage' without stating whether this is a read-only operation, what output format to expect, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a compliance checking tool.

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 directly states the tool's function without any fluff. Every word contributes to the meaning, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, but the description does not explain what the check returns or how the results are presented. While the purpose is clear, the lack of output detail means an agent may not know what to expect from invoking it. This is a moderate gap for a compliance tool.

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 the schema is empty with 100% coverage. Per the rubric, a 0-parameter baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no parameter-related semantics because none exist.

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 a specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource 'MFA coverage' against a specific regulatory standard 'DORA Art. 9(4)(d)'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like access_gap_analysis or access_review, which focus on other compliance aspects.

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 implies usage when verifying MFA compliance against DORA Art. 9(4)(d), providing a clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternative tools, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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