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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it states read-only and stateless behavior, gives concrete size limits, explains canonical JSON digesting, and includes an important caveat that the injection score is only one signal, not a guarantee.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds return behavior, usage, limits, and caveats in a compact sequence. Every sentence adds useful information and none are wasted.

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, so the description must explain return values, and it does: per-tool and catalogue digests, hidden-text findings, and injection signals. It also covers input constraints and caveats, making the definition complete for this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance for the expected parameter—comparing prior digests to detect changes—and adds a request-body size constraint not captured fully in the 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 states a specific verb and resource: it pins an MCP tool manifest. It also explains the exact outputs—per-tool and catalogue SHA-256 digests, hidden-text findings, and injection signals—which makes it easy to distinguish from the sibling verification and rating tools.

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?

It clearly says to use the tool before an agent trusts a manifest and to pass stored digests as expected to detect added, changed, or removed tools. It does not name alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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