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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'No data stored' (privacy), rate limits (Free/Pro), the return shape ({total, by_severity, findings}), and a nuanced suppression rule for the generic password-assignment rule. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a compact paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then adds languages, usage, limits, output, and one behavioral nuance. Every sentence adds genuine value, though a few details (rate limits, suppression rule) could be seen as extra. Overall, well-structured and not verbose.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (multiple languages, output format) and the existence of an output schema, the description covers all key aspects: purpose, supported languages, explicit use case, rate limits, privacy, return shape, and a subtle edge-case rule. It is fully sufficient for an agent 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the schema already explains 'code' and 'language' fully. The description restates the supported languages but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides. 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Scan source code (or snippet) for hardcoded secrets,' and enumerates the types of secrets (cloud provider keys, API tokens, etc.). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tool check_injection by naming it as the alternative for injection detection, making the purpose clear and distinct.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use to detect leaked credentials before commit') and explicitly names an alternative ('for injection detection use check_injection'). It also provides supported languages, which helps the agent choose the tool appropriately.

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