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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose important behavior: it is static text-pattern analysis that opens no ports and executes nothing, and it requires a valid key. That is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about what the analysis returns (finding shape, severity, confidence, false-positive behavior), which is a meaningful gap for a scanner with no output schema.

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 core purpose is front-loaded, but the body is heavily padded with an extended explanation of the DNS rebinding attack, three CVE references, and project-specific motivation. Some of that supports trust and urgency, yet much of it does not help an agent decide or call the tool correctly.

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 two-parameter static scanner with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, safety profile, prerequisites, and detection logic well enough to invoke correctly. The main missing piece is a description of the return value, which the absent output schema leaves entirely undocumented.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the 'codigo' parameter's meaning but adds no syntax, format, or sizing guidance beyond it, and does not mention 'lenguaje' at all, so it does not exceed 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?

States a specific verb and resource: static analysis of the code that builds an MCP server's HTTP/SSE transport, looking for missing Origin/Host header validation. It is unambiguous about scope and explicitly contrasts its approach with named siblings (detect_ssrf_risk, detect_command_injection_risk), so an agent can place it in the catalog without opening the schema.

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 a clear usage context — inspecting transport configuration code for Origin validation — and clarifies a common wrong assumption (binding to localhost is not protection), which effectively tells the agent when this check still applies. It also states the access-key prerequisite and where to get one. It stops short of explicit 'use X instead when Y' routing among the other detect_* siblings.

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