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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the cost ('$1.00 per call') and payment method ('USDC over x402'), which is critical for an agent deciding whether to invoke. It also mentions 'real-time threat intelligence,' implying live data access. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose in the first sentence and the cost in the second. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple Q&A tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what the tool does, the topic scope, cost, and payment method. The optional subscription_token is documented clearly in the schema, so the description need not elaborate further. The agent has all necessary information to decide whether to use the 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 input schema covers 100% of the parameters (query and subscription_token) with descriptions. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The schema is sufficient.

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 states the tool's function: 'Ask a cyber security question and get an expert answer backed by real-time threat intelligence.' It uses a specific verb ('ask') and resource ('cyber security question'), and the scope ('current threats, best practice and compliance') distinguishes it from sibling verification tools, which are more narrowly focused.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: whenever a cyber security question needs an expert answer. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the purpose is evident given the sibling list of specialized verification tools, making the usage context clear.

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