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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose useful traits: analysis is static (no execution of the repo), requires no sign-up, and only works on public repos; but it says nothing about what findings look like, whether scanning is synchronous, or any rate/size limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the object of the scan stated first and two compact parentheticals that both add real information (static, no sign-up). 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?

For a one-parameter, non-destructive analysis tool this is nearly sufficient. The main remaining gap is that there is no output schema and the description does not hint at the shape of the findings, so an agent cannot anticipate return values.

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 100% and the single repo parameter is already well documented with accepted formats. The description only reinforces the 'public' constraint, adding little beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 (scan), a precise resource (a public repo's supabase/migrations), and the exact class of defect (row-level-security mistakes). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from similarly named siblings like get_check or start_check beyond the 'static analysis' qualifier.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. The word 'static' implies it does not run the code, but an agent gets no direction on choosing this over run_check or start_check for a given task.

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