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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states that scan results are returned, but does not disclose whether the tool runs a new scan or returns cached results, whether results are limited by default, whether any write or side effect occurs, or what authentication/access assumptions exist.

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 short sentence with no wasted words and the main action is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified rather than deliberately concise: it needs additional clauses for usage, behavior, or parameter semantics to be genuinely helpful.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the tool still has six optional but undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no usage context. The description alone is not enough for an agent to know how to set filters like decision, severity, or actionable_only, or what 'registered secure-context sources' requires.

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 0%, and the description provides no information about the six parameters (limit, rule_id, decision, severity, source_id, actionable_only). The agent receives no guidance on accepted values or how filters interact, so this dimension is severely under-served.

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 uses a clear verb ('Return') plus a specific resource ('context-poisoning scan results') and bounds the scope to 'registered secure-context sources.' It is not a tautology and the topic clearly separates it from most sibling tools, but it does not explicitly contrast with related secure_context or guard-pack siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives. The phrase 'for registered secure-context sources' hints at a prerequisite, but with dozens of similar secure-context and guard-pack siblings, the description does not help an agent decide between them.

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