get_authentication_strength_summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering side effects and safety. The description adds what the summary contains (strength categories and passkey/FIDO2 adoption), but does not disclose output format, aggregation level beyond 'enterprise', or any other behavioral traits.

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 a single concise sentence in Portuguese with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the key categorical outputs, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 zero-parameter summary tool, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and the enterprise scope. It lacks explicit detail about the response format, but for a summary tool with no input schema and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete.

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 schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter documentation burden. The description does not need to explain parameters and correctly focuses on the output semantics.

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 clearly states the tool returns an enterprise-level summary of authentication strength (strong/mixed/weak) and passkey/FIDO2 adoption. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list individual users or methods, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of related tools like get_authentication_methods_summary, list_users_without_mfa, or list_users_with_passkey. The context implies a high-level summary use case, but the description does not state it.

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