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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it is read-only and requires no account while making an external call to agentavow.com. It also discloses the signed, offline-verifiable nature of the result, which goes beyond the schema and annotations.

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 short sentences carry all the essential information, with the main result list front-loaded and no redundant filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description enumerates the return payload (score, verdict, findings, fix locations, attestation) and the access/network expectations. All required parameters are documented, and the tool is simple enough that no critical detail is missing.

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%, so the schema documents all three parameters. The description adds little beyond saying the repo is public; the cache behavior and owner/repo options are already described in 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 action ('Scan a public GitHub repository') and resource type, and it lists the concrete outputs (trust score, verdict, findings, attestation) and the external service used. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like scan_mcp_server and scan_package.

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 establishes that this is for public GitHub repositories and states the access constraints ('Read-only, no account'), but it never explicitly says when to choose scan_repo over check_interaction_safety or verify_trust. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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