security_overview

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature and external-world reach are covered. The description adds the scope of what's returned, which is useful, but doesn't mention the unused-token threshold semantics or result size.

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?

One efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and the three content categories enumerated. No padding, though a hint about usage context would have been worth the space.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. But with 0% param coverage, the description should clarify the unused_token_days parameter, and it offers no differentiation from sibling security tools — leaving gaps for a tool that overlaps several siblings.

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% and the single parameter unused_token_days only has a default of 90 in the schema with no explanation. The description alludes to 'unused' tokens but doesn't define the window or explain how this parameter controls it, leaving the core parameter undocumented.

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 subject (account security overview) and enumerates the concrete contents: admin role holders, OAuth tokens including unused ones, and installed apps. It is distinguishable from siblings like whoami or recent_admin_changes, though it overlaps conceptually with offboarding_report.

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 guidance on when to use this versus the security-adjacent siblings (whoami, recent_admin_changes, offboarding_report). The agent must infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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