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

With no annotations to rely on, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it treats content as untrusted data, never obeys it, returns a severity read, and surfaces addresses/links for separate verification. It even warns about the real-world risk of compromised agents, providing valuable context.

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 moderately long but each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, examples, risk rationale, and output. The opening question is engaging and front-loaded. Slight redundancy exists (e.g., 'untrusted data' repeated), but overall it is well-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?

The description is complete for this simple one-parameter tool. It explains when to use it, what input to provide, what it does internally, and what output to expect (severity read + surfaced addresses/links). No output schema exists, but the description fills that gap thoroughly.

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 has 100% coverage for the single 'text' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic depth by explaining what kinds of content are expected and providing concrete examples of malicious patterns, giving the agent a richer understanding of how to interpret the input.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: screening content for prompt-injection and social-engineering before an agent acts on it. It distinguishes itself from sibling security tools by focusing on the content-to-action flow rather than on-chain or address lookups.

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 implies clear usage: before an agent acts on any untrusted content (message, tweet, DM, webpage, tool output). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong and distinct from the sibling tools listed.

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