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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the specific probes (jailbreak, prompt-injection, system-prompt-extraction, tool-abuse), the output (0-100 score, level, full report), and the approximate runtime (~35s). It doesn't mention side effects or asynchronous behavior, but the disclosed detail is substantial for a read-only scan.

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, information-dense sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the most important fact ('Free LLM red-team scan'), then specifies probe types, output, and runtime. Every clause earns 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?

The tool's behavior is well‑described for a single call, but the presence of get_scan_result suggests a possible async or step‑wise workflow that isn't addressed. The description doesn't clarify whether the report is returned directly or requires a follow‑up call, which could confuse agents. The ~35s runtime hints at a synchronous call but is ambiguous.

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 parameter description ('Your agent / system prompt (>=20 chars)') is clear. The tool description adds context about the scan intent but doesn't provide new syntactic or format details for the parameter beyond the schema, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('run') with a clear resource ('free LLM red-team scan') and enumerates the adversarial probe types. It clearly distinguishes from the get_* siblings by stating it executes a scan rather than retrieving pricing, purchase flow, or results.

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 implies usage ('scan your agent or system prompt') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It doesn't clarify whether to call get_scan_result afterwards, which would be useful given the sibling set.

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