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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only states that it is a 'dashboard template' and offers 'reporting guidance,' but does not explain what the tool actually returns, whether it produces a visual dashboard, a document, or data output. No side effects, prerequisites, or limitations are mentioned, leaving significant gaps for an agent invoking the 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 extremely concise, using two sentences and a list of metrics. It front-loads the tool's identity as a 'dashboard template' and includes a list of KPIs. However, it could be slightly better structured with an explicit statement of what the agent should expect, but it avoids unnecessary 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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description carries full responsibility for explaining the tool's behavior. It does not specify what the agent will receive (e.g., a rendered dashboard, a markdown template, a JSON object) or what actions the agent can take with it. This incompleteness makes it difficult to use correctly in a broader task.

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, so the schema provides no parameter details. The baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4, and the description adds relevant context about the tool's output (dashboard template with specific metrics), which is sufficient since there is nothing to explain about parameters.

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 identifies the tool as a 'Security KPI/metrics dashboard template' and lists specific metrics (MTTD, MTTR, patch compliance, phishing rate), making its purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on reporting/templates rather than scans or specific risk scores, though it lacks a strong verb like 'generates' or 'provides'.

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 gives no explicit instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Board-ready reporting guidance' implies a reporting context, but there is no mention of alternatives or exclusions. For example, when should this be chosen over risk_matrix or incident_playbook? No guidance is provided.

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