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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description need not restate safety. It adds behavioral context by noting that it returns a risk score and detailed report, which is useful beyond the safety hints. No contradictions exist.

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 only a few lines but contains redundant wording: 'Free' appears twice and 'Free, no payment required' is a duplicate. The core purpose and usage are front-loaded, but the extra repetition prevents a higher score.

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 simple tool with one parameter, output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, and return value. No essential information is missing 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?

The only parameter 'text' is fully described in the schema ('The text to scan for hidden characters and homoglyphs'). The description mentions similar scanning targets but adds no additional syntax, format, or constraint details, so it does not elevate beyond the 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 clearly states it scans text strings for invisible Unicode characters, homoglyphs, and normalization issues, which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like domain_check_v1 and text_purge_v1. The phrase 'Use this tool before text_purge_v1' further differentiates its role in a workflow.

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?

Explicitly provides a usage directive: 'Use this tool before text_purge_v1 to inspect suspicious content.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and names an alternative/successor tool, making selection straightforward. The repeat of 'Free' reinforces cost-related selection criteria.

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