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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; 'it runs nothing' largely restates that. The one genuinely new behavioral fact is that results vary by plan entitlement ('whether your organization's plan includes running them'), which tells the agent why some tests may appear unavailable.

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 core purpose and the no-side-effects caveat are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with usage guidance confined to a single labeled line. No filler or repetition.

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 one-optional-parameter, read-only catalog tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: what is listed, what each entry contains, that nothing executes, and the plan-gating caveat.

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 the single optional 'category' parameter is documented in the schema with concrete examples (prompt_injection, jailbreak). The description adds no filtering semantics or syntax beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (List) and a precisely bounded resource (the red-team attacks run against a project's guardrails), and enumerates the fields each item carries: name, category, intent, expected result, plan inclusion. The line 'It lists the tests; it runs nothing' cleanly separates it from execution-oriented siblings such as promptguard_scan_text and promptguard_scan_code.

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 explicit 'When to use: To explain what security testing covers before running it' gives a clear trigger condition. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating when not to call it, but the single stated context is unambiguous.

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