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

Discloses important non-obvious behavior beyond annotations: the call is paid at 500 micro-dollar credits, cancellation/recovery semantics via requestId, that a new requestId is a new billable operation, and prerequisite setup steps. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core function, followed by essential cost, prerequisite, and recovery details. Every sentence adds operational value with no filler.

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 paid-service complexity and existing output schema, the description covers the critical operational context: cost, prerequisite call, authorization requirement, and recovery behavior. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and avoid surprise charges.

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 description clarifies that 'policy' is a Content Security Policy and adds billing/recovery context for requestId. Schema coverage is 67%, so this extra context helps compensate, though the nested input structure and maxPriceMicroUsd behavior rely partly on the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Parse') and resource ('supplied Content Security Policy') and states the outcome ('flag selected risky or missing directives'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling security tools like security_header_audit and security_cookie_audit.

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?

Provides explicit preconditions and workflow: call agent_utilities_prepare first, requires existing credits and a private Authorization header, and reuse prepared arguments for recovery. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative security audit tools, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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