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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the two-mode call pattern, the number and thematic coverage of questions (access, data, systems, people, incident response, backups), and the scoring rule that unanswered questions score zero.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the use case and then the mechanical contract. Both the selection clause and the two invocation modes earn their place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly carries the return-value burden, enumerating a 0-100 score, a risk level, and per-category scores. Combined with the question-set description and the scoring rule, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly in either mode.

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 100% and the nested answer map is already documented with an example and the yes/partial/no enum plus the 'unanswered score zero' rule. The description reinforces the conditional use of the parameter but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource pair ('quick view of a small organisation's cyber risk') and defines both operating modes: question retrieval without answers, scoring with answers. The 'quick view'/score framing clearly separates it from the sibling remediation/action-plan tools such as cyber_risk_action_plan.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrasing ('how secure are we?', 'what is our cyber risk score?') and tells the agent exactly which mode to use under which condition (omit answers vs. supply yes/partial/no). It stops short of naming alternative siblings or stating when not to use this tool, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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