analyze_drift

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the drift classification, score delta, and lists of improvements/regressions, which is useful beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 long, front-loads the core purpose and output, and includes the usage directive. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundant information.

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 100% schema coverage, detailed param descriptions, and clear annotations, the description is complete for a 4-param tool with no output schema. It explains both the output format and parameter semantics.

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 coverage is 100% with good descriptions. The description's main text adds significant clarity for the 'baseline' parameter, distinguishing it from a policy object and directing to compare_baseline. Other parameters are well-described in the schema, so the description provides value beyond schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('measure'), identifies the resource ('domain's DNS security posture'), and clearly distinguishes the tool from its sibling 'compare_baseline' by contrasting improvement over time vs. compliance against a fixed policy.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('did our security score improve or regress since last time?') and when not to ('distinct from compare_baseline which checks compliance against a fixed policy'), naming the alternative sibling tool.

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