audit_users_without_mfa

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it scans every IAM user, considers console login profiles, flags only those with no MFA, reports HIGH severity, and clarifies that non-console users are counted but not flagged. The return object shape is also disclosed.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, then a second sentence detailing scan behavior, severity, return shape, and edge-case handling. Every phrase adds value and no irrelevant details are present.

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 no-parameter, read-only audit tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, exact behavior, severity, return fields, and the edge case of users without console access. Nothing essential for selecting and invoking the tool correctly 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 has zero parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the rubric, a parameterless tool earns a baseline of 4 because 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource-criterion combo: auditing IAM users who can log in to the console without MFA. It differentiates its scope from sibling audit tools by focusing specifically on console login profiles and MFA devices, and includes a concrete severity label (HIGH).

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when auditing IAM console access without MFA. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can select it appropriately among the audit_* siblings.

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