Preview what a trust page would say right now

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing that no publish or file write occurs, that the output is data-only, and that it never emits compliance language like 'compliant' or 'certified' — with the CPA-attestation rationale explaining why. It also reveals a fingerprint mechanism the viewer can recompute, which is meaningful behavioral detail an agent would not infer from annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and then adds traceability, non-publishing, and compliance guardrails. It is somewhat verbose, especially the CPA/attestation rationale, but every sentence contributes substantive context and none of it is filler.

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 one fully documented parameter, an output schema present, and annotations already establishing read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description is complete for safe invocation. It covers the tool's outputs, evidence lineage, side-effect absence, and content constraints, so an agent has everything needed to select and call it 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% because batchId is documented as the batch ID returned by scan_iac. The description adds only 'from a scan' at a concept level and does not provide additional parameter-specific guidance, so the schema carries the load and the baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: it 'builds a per-criterion evidence summary from a scan' for a prospect's security team. It also distinguishes itself from publication tools by emphasizing 'returns DATA ONLY — nothing is published and no file is written', which separates it from siblings like render_trust_page.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this when you need a previewable evidence summary without publishing or persisting anything. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use render_trust_page when you want to publish', so it lacks an explicit when-not, but the data-only framing provides strong implicit guidance.

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