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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it returns 'a signed result object' and costs '$0.5 USDC'. It does not detail detection scope or authentication requirements, but the key non-schema traits are disclosed.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with the core purpose and sibling distinction. The punctuation is awkward ('poisoning, not permission; a signed result object. $0.5 USDC.'), but every phrase carries information.

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?

A read-only, idempotent, single-parameter tool with an output schema; the description covers purpose, alternative, output nature (signed), and cost. It does not explain what poisoning categories are detected, but with the output schema and annotations the definition is largely 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% for the single 'tools' parameter, so the schema already documents the input. The description implies the parameter is a set of MCP tool definitions but adds no syntax, shape, or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('Analyse') and resource ('MCP tool definitions') plus the target issue ('poisoning'), which distinguishes it from generic permission-assessment siblings. The phrasing is slightly garbled ('for poisoning, not permission'), but the core purpose is clear.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative tool ('use it rather than `assess_tool_permission`') and clarifies the selection condition ('for poisoning, not permission'). No when-not guidance beyond that contrast, but the key sibling differentiation is present.

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