Add OCSF mapping to parser

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds limited context beyond them. The phrase 'Follow the workflow instructions provided in the response' hints that the tool may return guidance rather than directly mutating the pipeline, which is useful, but it does not clarify side effects, permissions, or what happens to existing mapping. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise and front-loaded, but the bullet list contains three similar items ('map security logs to OCSF', 'normalizing data...', 'make data compatible...') that are somewhat redundant. It's not wasteful enough to score lower, but it could be more tightly structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 params, no output schema) and the presence of annotations, the description covers the core purpose, usage scenarios, and hints at the response format. It lacks details about sample input format, edge cases, or what the workflow instructions specifically entail, but it is sufficient for basic selection and invocation.

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 50%; only 'sample' is described, and the description's mention of 'sample log events' mirrors the schema's own description. The 'ctx' parameter is unexplained. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so 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: 'Add OCSF mapping to a TQL parsing pipeline.' It also elaborates with scenarios like 'map security logs to the OCSF standard' and 'normalizing data from multiple sources into a common schema,' clearly distinguishing it from sibling OCSF lookup tools (e.g., ocsf_get_class) and parser creation tools (e.g., make_parser).

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 has an explicit 'Use this tool when' section listing four relevant scenarios, providing clear context for when to invoke it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5, but the guidance is direct and actionable.

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