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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/non-destructive/closed-world annotations by disclosing a per-call cost (0.008 USDC on Base), a determinism caveat, and an explicit coverage limitation ('results do not guarantee safety'). These are exactly the operational traits an agent needs before relying on the output.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the call trigger, followed by capability, cost, and caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

Covers the safety and cost picture well and there is no output schema to explain, but it leaves the strict_mode switch and the input constraints entirely unaddressed. An agent can invoke it, but cannot tune behavior or predict the return shape.

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 0% for both parameters, and the description says nothing about what 'content' accepts (e.g. size limits, format) or what 'strict_mode' changes. With two undocumented parameters and no compensating explanation, the agent must guess at strict_mode's effect and the 50000-character ceiling.

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?

States a specific action (detects and scrubs) against a specific class of threats (prompt injection, malicious wallet transfer exploits) and frames the tool as a pre-context security gate. There are no sibling tools to differentiate from, so this is as precise as the definition can be.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ('before placing untrusted text, scraped web content, or tool outputs into your context window') that an agent can act on. It stops short of stating when not to call it (e.g. trusted content), so it is clear context without full when/when-not coverage.

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