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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It only states the purpose and says nothing about side effects, permissions, data scope, or response format. The agent cannot infer whether this is read-only or what happens on execution.

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 repetitive sentence that repeats 'attack surface' and offers no structure or front-loaded critical information. It is under-specified rather than concise, failing to earn its place.

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 has one parameter and an output schema, but neither is described, the definition is incomplete. An agent cannot determine the input type or the expected output structure, and the description does not address the complexity of choosing among many similar tools.

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?

The schema has a single parameter 'q' with no description, and the tool description does not explain what 'q' should contain. With 0% schema description coverage, the parameter is entirely undocumented, leaving the agent to guess the expected input (e.g., domain, IP, URL).

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 clear verb ('map') and resource ('attack surface'), and enumerates what is mapped (services, endpoints, API). It is not a tautology and provides a distinct purpose, but it does not differentiate this tool from the many related enumeration siblings, so it does not earn a 5.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving an agent without direction on selection.

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