get_benchmark

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by explaining what the output contains (percentile, mean, common failures) and implies safe, read-only behavior. No contradictions or missing safety context.

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: first explains the tool's function, second gives usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with key action. Ideal length for quick comprehension.

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 full schema coverage, good annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose and output concept. Could benefit from a brief mention of how the percentile is computed or the time range, but overall complete enough.

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 clear enum descriptions and defaults. The description adds no new information about the parameters beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('industry benchmark data') and the context (domain's security score relative to sector/country). It lists concrete outputs (percentile, mean score, common failures), distinguishing it from sibling check tools that focus on individual tests.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: '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.' This covers the main use cases without ambiguity.

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