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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, idempotent. The description adds 'no network access or code execution' and 'fully redacted preview', which are safety and output-behavior disclosures beyond the annotations, enhancing transparency.

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?

Two succinct sentences: first defines the tool's purpose and scope, second outlines return values and safety. No redundant phrasing, perfectly 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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so detailed return values are not needed. The description covers the key behavior, safety, and input type. It lacks explicit limitations (e.g., false-positive rates) but remains sufficient for straightforward use.

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 0%, so the description must clarify the single parameter. It states 'caller-supplied source or configuration text', which conveys what to pass, but adds no format examples or edge-case guidance. This is adequate but minimal.

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 states the tool detects likely leaked secrets (API keys, tokens, etc.) in caller-supplied text, listing specific secret types and the output details (type, line, fingerprint, redacted preview). This strongly differentiates it from sibling tools like document.redact or data.clean.

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 usage when scanning source/config text for secrets but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not to use. The specific scope ('caller-supplied source or configuration text') provides context, but exclusions are absent.

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