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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true but readOnlyHint=false; the description adds value by disclosing billing (500 micro-dollar credits), authentication requirements, masking of findings, and the rule that a new requestId is a new billable operation. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then cost, prerequisites, and recovery. Each sentence carries meaningful information without padding. Slightly dense but well-structured.

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's complexity (paid, prerequisite, recovery), the description covers the essential operational details: billing, authorization, preparation step, and masking. The output schema exists so return format is covered. Minor omissions like explicit error handling or credit depletion scenarios are not critical.

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 covers 67% of parameters with descriptions; requestId and maxPriceMicroUsd are already described. The description reinforces the meaning of requestId by linking it to agent_utilities_prepare and clarifies maxPriceMicroUsd's role in recovery. This adds marginal value but does not fully compensate for the undocumented 'input' parameter's nested structure.

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 (detect) with a clear resource (five families of credential patterns) and a distinguishing feature (fully masked findings). It is easily distinguished from the sibling security_secret_redact which implies a different operation.

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 prerequisites: call agent_utilities_prepare first, requires existing credits and a private Authorization header. Also explains recovery behavior (reuse prepared arguments). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know the correct usage flow.

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