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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is metered ($1.99, always metered) and implies a quarantined copy, but it omits whether the copy is persisted, what gets quarantined, failure behavior, and permission requirements.

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 very short and front-loads the operation and cost. However, the trailing 'Args: tree, harness, version, policy' list duplicates the schema without adding meaning and consumes space that could have clarified behavior.

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?

With four parameters, nested tree and policy objects, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the definition is far too thin for an agent to invoke correctly. It does not explain what tree or policy should contain, nor what the sanitised quarantined copy actually returns.

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%, and the description merely repeats parameter names ('tree, harness, version, policy') without explaining what any of them mean. For a tool with nested objects like tree and policy, this leaves all four parameters semantically undefined.

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 says 'Audit + sanitised quarantined copy' but never states a clear verb+resource outcome, leaving it ambiguous whether the tool audits, creates a copy, or both. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling preopen_audit, which also sounds audit-related.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus lookup_verdict, preopen_audit, or verify_receipt. The only usage-like detail is 'always metered', which is pricing context rather than a decision rule.

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