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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it declares 'local, read-only', states the return is 'install and run instructions', and reassures that 'nothing sensitive leaves it'. It stops short of stating whether the tool itself performs any scan or mutates system state, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, and the most decision-relevant facts (what it is, what it returns, that it is local/safe) are front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it is, what it returns, and its safety profile. Minor gaps remain around whether authentication or network access is required, but nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics to add beyond the empty schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get the free FEDLIN Agent Exposure Scanner') and explains what the scanner does. It implies a distinction from the sibling scan_* tools by framing this as a local, on-machine tool that returns install instructions rather than performing a remote scan, but it never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts the scope.

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 usage context is implied by the description of what the scanner covers ('where AI agents on your machine can reach sensitive data'), so an agent can infer when it is relevant. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to scan_domain_trust, scan_post_quantum, or scan_security_headers.

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