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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, permissions, reversibility, duplicate handling, and return values. It merely says 'register' without explaining consequences or required authorization. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation support.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It uses the verb 'register' directly and is efficient. However, it sacrifices clarity for brevity, which is why it does not receive a 5.

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 13-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain required fields, domain values, statuses, or workflow context, making it nearly impossible to use correctly without external documentation.

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 description coverage is only 8% (1 of 13 parameters), leaving most parameters undescribed. The tool description itself does not mention any parameters, failing to compensate. Users must rely on parameter names and the sparse schema descriptions, which is not enough for a 13-parameter tool.

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 'Register an audit finding, risk, or control gap' clearly indicates a creation/recording action with a specific resource. It distinguishes from list_findings (read-only) but vaguely groups three entity types, creating some ambiguity about whether these are distinct registration paths. It earns a 4 rather than a 5 because it does not explicitly differentiate from alternative write tools like exception_register.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or acceptable use cases, nor does it compare against list_findings or exception_register. The absence of any usage context is a clear gap.

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