Readiness report for an assessment

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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the description is free to add context: it names the expected input schema ("ecc-register/1"), sketches the input shape, and discloses that pagination applies specifically to the gap list rather than all output. That paging-scope detail is a genuine behavioral trait beyond the annotations, though return format specifics are left to the schema.

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?

A single tightly packed sentence-plus-clause: the verb and target lead, the output inventory follows, and the paging constraint closes it. No filler, no restatement of the title, every phrase carries 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by enumerating the report's components; the nested 'assessment' object and all five parameters are documented in the schema. It is nearly complete, with only minor gaps around gap-list ordering ('prioritized' is asserted but not explained) and failure modes.

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 description coverage is 100%, so limit/offset/lang/response_format are self-documenting and the baseline is 3. The description earns above baseline by clarifying that paging is scoped to gaps, which tells the agent what limit/offset actually paginate over in this tool.

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 (evaluate) and resource (an assessment object saved by the web app) and enumerates the outputs generated: overall and per-domain readiness, maturity band, status counts, prioritized gap list. This clearly separates it from listing/lookup siblings like ecc_list_domains or ecc_get_control, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 implies the context of use (you have an assessment object saved by the web app and want a readiness evaluation), and 'Paged over gaps' hints at large result sets. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no prerequisites, and no pointer to sibling tools for related needs, so guidance remains inferential.

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