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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly avoids repeating those. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context: the tool calls the agentavow.com public API, and it returns a signed attestation. It does not mention caching or rate limits, but the parameter schema covers the caching behavior.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: the first states purpose and target, the second enumerates the return value, and the third discloses side-effect behavior. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 compensates by enumerating the main outputs: trust score, verdict, findings, and signed attestation. It also explains why the scan is performed and that the operation is read-only, giving an agent enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces that endpoint_url refers to the live MCP server and adds meaning about what is scanned, but it provides no additional parameter-level syntax or format details beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: scan a live MCP server's tool definitions for concrete risk categories (tool-poisoning, prompt-injection, invisible-unicode, manifest-execution). This distinguishes it from sibling scanners like scan_package and scan_repo, and the 'before your agent connects to it' phrase gives an explicit trigger context.

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 clearly states when to use the tool ('before your agent connects') and identifies the target as a live MCP server, which implies the boundary against package/repo scanners. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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