Tower posture

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

The readOnlyHint already tells the agent this is a safe read, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the call is authenticated, the returned evidence is untrusted data, and record IDs should be cited with uncertainty preserved. It still does not say what the posture payload contains or how it is scoped, so the behavioral picture remains partial.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, and the security caveats are front-loaded after the identity statement. The terseness edges toward cryptic, but nothing is wasted.

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?

This is a low-complexity read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, yet the description still leaves the core question — what posture data comes back — unanswered, and the environment parameter unexplained. The safety-handling notes are complete, but the functional picture is not.

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 single parameter "environment" has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no allowed values, no default, no explanation of what environment scoping means for posture. With one undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Authenticated Control Tower posture" restates the tool name and title with an added qualifier but supplies no verb and no indication of what posture actually is or returns. It does not distinguish this tool from close siblings like tower.status, tower.evidence, or tower.capability_contract, so an agent cannot tell what unique resource it exposes.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; nothing says whether to call this before tower.status or instead of it. The only routing hint is a negative one — "Human approval uses Tower HTTP/CLI separately" — which implies this tool does not perform approvals, but that is inference rather than stated guidance.

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