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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention that the tool requires paymentProof for execution and returns a 402 price quote when omitted, which is a significant behavioral aspect encoded only in the schema. The openWorldHint=true suggests possible external interactions, but the description is silent on that.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core purpose. While it is very terse, it does not contain redundant information, and the brevity is not a problem per se, though it sacrifices contextual richness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (payment-gated audit service with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits the payment requirement, any guidance on when to invoke it, and what the audit entails beyond 'backdoors and data drains'. The presence of an output schema covers return format, but the usage context and behavioral caveats are missing, making it insufficient for an agent to call correctly without additional assumptions.

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 100%, so both parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information, but it does not need to – the baseline is 3 for high coverage, and the description does not contradict or enrich 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 purpose: a security audit focused on backdoors and data drains. This is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like security.exploit_research or security.hack_autopsy, though it does not explicitly mention the target 'agent code' – that is only implied from the name/title.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (like payment), nor does it compare to sibling security tools such as certify_package or exploit_research. There is no context about appropriate scenarios or exclusions.

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