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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns but does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether it modifies state), authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. The mention of 'which clocks start' hints at possible side effects, but it is ambiguous.

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 concise: two sentences that convey purpose and output without extraneous text. However, it could benefit from a more structured format to highlight key points.

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 13 parameters and no param descriptions, the description is insufficient for proper use. It fails to explain which regimes are in scope, how inputs affect classification, or provide examples. An output schema exists but is not described, so the agent cannot infer return structure.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, it does not explain any parameters or their expected values. Parameter titles are somewhat clear, but without description, an agent may misinterpret fields like entity_type or incident_description.

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 verb 'classify', the resource 'incident', and the scope 'against every regime in scope'. It also specifies the output as a multi-regime decision tree with details on clocks, notifications, etc. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_regime_clocks and sign_incident_response_attestation.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'reporting clocks + authorities' but gives no details about read-only nature, authentication requirements (api_key optional but unexplained), rate limits, or side effects. The description fails to add sufficient behavioral context.

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 very concise at one sentence, front-loading the verb and object. Every word earns its place. However, it could be slightly expanded without harming conciseness to cover parameter usage.

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 that an output schema exists (not shown), the description need not detail return values. However, it lacks context about what 'regimes' are, prerequisites for the optional api_key, and any behavioral caveats. For a simple list tool, the coverage is adequate but not thorough.

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 has one parameter (api_key) with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention the parameter, its purpose, or when to provide it. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's bare structure.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('reporting clocks + authorities') with explicit scope ('every regime this MCP covers'), effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like classify_incident and sign_incident_response_attestation.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the tool's name and description make its purpose clear enough given the distinct siblings. A statement about prerequisites or context would improve the score.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it generates a signed attestation and captures specific data, but does not disclose authentication needs, potential side effects, error behaviors, or whether it requires special permissions. The mention of 'Pro+' hints at licensing but is vague.

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 plus a bullet-style list, concise and to the point. It avoids unnecessary detail, but could benefit from slightly better structure to separate what it does from what it captures.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers high-level purpose and output but fails to explain parameter semantics, usage context, or how it fits with siblings, leaving significant gaps.

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 has 7 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameter. This leaves the meaning of each parameter entirely unclear, forcing agents to guess.

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 generates a signed attestation for incident response, specifying it captures regimes notified, SLAs, and response score. This distinguishes it from classification (classify_incident) and listing (list_regime_clocks), but does not explicitly differentiate.

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 use after incident response for compliance evidence, but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives like classify_incident or list_regime_clocks.

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