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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden, and it does substantially: it discloses what is flagged, what is deliberately NOT flagged (visible body text, avoiding false positives), and the intended timing of invocation. It does not describe output format or what a finding looks like, but behavioral expectations for the caller are well established.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then detection classes, then exclusions, then usage timing. Every clause earns its place. It is dense but not padded; slightly longer than strictly necessary for a one-parameter tool but the added detail is genuinely useful.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, exclusions, and invocation timing. The only missing element is what a positive result looks like, but the tool's safety-scan framing makes that less critical than the when-to-call guidance it does provide.

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 100% and there is a single required 'url' parameter documented in the schema. The description adds no per-parameter detail, which is fine; baseline for a fully-described single param is high. No meaningful gap.

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 (scan) and a specific resource (a single web page) with an unusually precise scope: content planted to hijack an AI agent reading it. It even enumerates the exact detection classes (invisible unicode, zero-width chars, tag block, CSS-hidden text, instruction-shaped alt/title/aria-label). No sibling tools exist, so no differentiation is needed, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to call: 'before an autonomous shopping/browsing agent acts on a page's content (add to cart, follow instructions found on the page, etc).' It also defines an important exclusion (visible body text is not judged). No named alternative tool, but with no siblings there is none to name, so the gap is minor.

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