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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the tool 'scans' these sources, but does not explain what 'scan' entails (e.g., search engine queries, API calls), whether it requires authentication, rate limits, or what output format to expect. This is minimal 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 a single concise sentence with no fluff, and the action is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary detail, though brevity itself is appropriate.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not specify what 'q' is, what results will look like, or how to interpret 'API Key Exposure'. It also fails to distinguish among several closely related sibling tools, leaving critical context missing.

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 0% and the description does not explain the sole parameter 'q'. Without any description, an agent cannot know what to pass in (e.g., a query term, a key pattern, a URL). The description adds zero value for parameter understanding.

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 states a specific action ('Scan') and resources ('GitHub/Pastebin/Google') for exposed API keys/secrets. It is easy to understand what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like gh_secret_scan or apileak.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or contrasting tools, leaving the agent to guess based on name alone.

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