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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits, but it only states the mapping function and filters. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the output format is, or any side effects/limitations.

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 purpose and filter capability with no extraneous words.

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 output schema and annotations, the description does not fully cover the tool's behavior. It omits what the mapping output looks like and whether there are any constraints or additional usage context needed.

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 description explains that 'tactic' and 'technique' are filters, with 'technique' being a technique ID, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not provide format examples or enumerate valid values, leaving some ambiguity.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: mapping MITRE ATT&CK techniques to DORA TLPT, and mentions filtering by technique ID or tactic. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like attack_chain or obligation_map.

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 for mapping techniques and provides filter options, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like obligation_map or attack_chain. It gives some context for filtering but no exclusions.

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