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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the tool analyzes a code snippet and reports remaining issues, and it clarifies scope by excluding the filesystem. However, it does not explicitly state side effects (e.g., read-only), error behavior, or the structure of the report, which would provide fuller transparency.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: what it does, when to use it, and what inputs to provide. No filler or redundancy.

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 modest complexity (3 params, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, scope, usage context, and input requirements. It gives a general sense of the return ('report any classical crypto that remains'), though a bit more detail about the output format would make it fully complete.

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 the parameter details are already well documented. The description adds a helpful hint to provide 'code' plus 'language' or 'filename', but this largely restates what the schema already indicates, adding minimal new meaning.

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 identifies a specific action: running quantakrypto detectors over a code snippet and reporting remaining classical crypto. It also states the intended use case ('confirm an edit actually removed the quantum-vulnerable usage'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like triage_findings or remediate_findings.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this to confirm an edit actually removed the quantum-vulnerable usage') and provides an exclusion ('NOT the filesystem'). However, it does not name alternative sibling tools, so it falls just short of the highest level.

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