Get assessment summary

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: it discloses the auth scope needed, that the response is deliberately slim and omits risk/evidence payload, and that change labels are authoritative. It stops short of explaining pagination/limits, which for a summary call is minor.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the sibling-routing guidance, then the auth requirement. The middle enumeration is dense but every clause maps to a distinct return field; the 'read those labels as given' instruction earns its place as an interpretation guard.

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 usefully enumerates the returned fields and warns against recomputing the change match, and it covers the auth requirement and sibling routing. The only substantive gap is identification of assessmentPid.

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 single parameter assessmentPid has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what the identifier is, its format, or where to obtain it. With one undocumented parameter the description should compensate but does not.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('slim assessment report summary'), explicitly scopes it against the full payload, and enumerates the payload contents (overview, quality, EU AI Act tier, section counts, projectDecisions, changesSincePrevious). An agent can distinguish it from air_get_assessment_report without opening either schema.

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 names the alternative sibling and the selecting condition: 'Prefer this over air_get_assessment_report for triage.' It also states the prerequisite ('Requires assessments:read') and gives an operational rule for interpreting changesSincePrevious rather than recomputing it.

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