get_benchmark

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by detailing the output contents (percentile, mean score, common failures), providing context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict any annotations.

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: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no extraneous 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the output (percentile, mean, common failures) and the cohorts (sector/country). It does not mention that the tool requires a domain, but that may be implicit from context. Overall, it provides sufficient information for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It implies the tool operates on a domain's score, but parameter details are left to the 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 clearly states the tool retrieves benchmark data, specifically percentile ranking, mean score, and common DNS security failures. It uses a specific verb ('get') and resource ('industry benchmark data'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on individual checks or specific assessments.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'when asked how a score compares to the industry average, what percentile a score is in, or what the most common security failures are in an industry or sector.' It lacks when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, but the positive guidance is clear and actionable.

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