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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the payment requirement (0.005 USDC via x402) and that it returns sanitized text, but omits permissions, side effects, rate limits, and what sanitization entails. For a security scanner with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that names the tool, price, action, input types, and output without wasted words. The parenthetical price is integrated efficiently.

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 supplies the return type ('sanitized text'), and it states the cost. Given one required parameter and no annotations, this covers the essentials for invocation, though it could clarify safety profile or response structure.

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 schema documents the single 'text' parameter at 100% coverage. The description adds source examples (web pages, emails, MCP responses, A2A payloads) beyond the schema's 'text, HTML, or tool output', providing modest extra semantic context, though it does not specify format constraints.

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 ('Scans') and resources ('untrusted web pages, emails, MCP responses, or A2A payloads') and specifies the output ('returns sanitized text'). It is clearly distinguishable from all listed siblings, none of which perform prompt-injection scanning.

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?

Establishes context by listing the categories of untrusted input it handles, so an agent knows to use it when it encounters such content. However, it does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, and omits prerequisites like the x402 payment requirement implied by the parenthetical cost.

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