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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: sensitive values are redacted in the output and input is not retained, which matters for handling production configs. It stops short of describing failure modes or size limits.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the core detection capability is front-loaded and the privacy guarantees follow immediately. Every clause 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a tool with three parameters, two enums, and zero schema coverage, the description leaves the parameter surface and the meaning of 'bounded' unexplained, which an agent needs in order to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Redacting sensitive values' loosely gestures at redaction_profile and 'bounded CLI output' at snapshot, but neither snapshot_type's enum values nor the difference between 'secrets_only' and 'strict' is clarified.

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 ('Detect') and the exact extracted fields (vendor, model, OS, version) from a named input type ('bounded CLI output'). No sibling covers snapshot analysis, so differentiation is moot, but the purpose is unambiguous without opening the schema.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. It does not explain when to pick a snapshot_type other than 'auto', nor what qualifies as 'bounded' input or what happens if the input exceeds that bound. Usage is only inferable from the name.

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