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

Annotations only declare non-read-only, non-destructive, and non-idempotent behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond them: the $0.01 USDC Solana payment, per-scan billing, no text storage, paid retry semantics, and the important caveat that a safe verdict is not a guarantee of safety.

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 three sentences and front-loads the cost and purpose. Each sentence adds distinct information — outputs, privacy/retry behavior, and the safe-verdict caveat — with no repetitive 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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the return components: signed verdict, every matched pattern with position, and a sanitized copy. It also covers cost, privacy, retry behavior, and the key limitation, which is sufficient for a one-parameter paid scanning tool.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents that 'text' is the text to scan and has an 8,000-character limit. The description confirms it scans 'one submitted text' but adds no format or syntax details beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a paid prompt-injection scan of one submitted text, and it lists the deliverables. It does not explicitly name injection_precheck as the free alternative, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the word 'paid.'

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 makes the paid nature and safety limitation clear, which helps an agent understand the tradeoff. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this paid scan instead of injection_precheck or injection_rules, leaving the routing decision inferential.

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