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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the scan is pattern-based and not a guarantee, that results should be reviewed, and that the service is free, anonymous, and stores nothing. This goes well beyond the basic 'scan' semantics and gives an agent an accurate safety/limitation profile.

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 short, purposeful sentences: the first states the action and output, the second gives the key limitation, and the third provides privacy/usage context. No filler or redundant wording.

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 and no output schema, the description covers the input, the output, the limitation, and the privacy guarantees. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke it correctly is 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?

The schema already covers the only parameter ('text') at 100%, including its maxLength and description. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond naming the text to scan, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Scan'), a clear resource ('text'), and a concrete output ('redacted copy plus findings'). It clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like qm_attest and qm_probe_endpoint by focusing on prompt-injection scanning.

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?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool: scanning text for prompt-injection patterns. It also provides important usage caveats like 'review before trusting the result' and states that the operation is free, anonymous, and stores nothing, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this one.

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