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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by stating the tool is advisory-only, rule-based, free, anonymous, and that nothing is stored. This gives an agent a clear safety and privacy profile, though it does not describe return format or error 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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The core function is front-loaded, followed by necessary caveats and privacy assurances. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter advisory tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects an agent needs: purpose, method, advisory limitations, and privacy guarantees. It does not explicitly describe the return value shape, but 'scan for common risk patterns' strongly implies the output. Slightly more detail on what the response contains would make it complete.

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 already fully describes the single 'action' parameter with a clear description and max length, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, but it does reinforce that the action is 'planned,' which is consistent. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: an 'Advisory second opinion on a planned action' using a 'rule-based scan for common risk patterns.' It identifies the resource (planned action) and the mechanism (rule-based scan), though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools by name.

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 when to use it: when a second opinion on a planned action is needed. It also clarifies what it is not ('not legal, financial, or professional advice'), which sets expectations. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool would be appropriate instead.

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