keel_readiness

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact return fields, including types ('readiness' as percent integer), and the framework scoping constraint. It doesn't state auth, rate limits, or errors, but for a no-parameter read endpoint this is a solid level of disclosure.

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 with no filler: the first states purpose and scope, the second enumerates the response fields. Every part adds value and the most important scoping caveat is front-loaded.

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 no-parameter read endpoint with no output schema, the description is fully self-sufficient: it identifies the exact framework, clarifies the exclusion, and lists every return field. Nothing an agent needs to decide to call this tool is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description implicitly confirms this by not mentioning any inputs, and per the baseline for 0-param tools, no additional description is needed.

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 ('Get') and resource ('audit-readiness summary for ISO/IEC 27001:2022'), and explicitly narrows the scope to that framework only, distinguishing it from any workspace-applied framework. The sibling tools are all different resources (whoami, list vendors, controls, etc.), so this description clearly identifies what this tool does.

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 clearly communicates when to use this tool: when you need the readiness summary specifically for ISO/IEC 27001:2022, not the framework the workspace has applied. It doesn't name alternative tools for other frameworks, but the sibling list shows no overlapping readiness tools, so the exclusion is sufficient context.

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