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

Annotations already establish readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable output behavior: it returns a risk score, safe/review/block recommendation, attack indicators, and a safe rewritten version 'when available.' This goes beyond the 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action, scope, and return values with no wasted words. The 'when available' qualifier is a useful precision that does not bloat the description.

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?

With a fully documented input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description does not need to repeat those details. It supplies the high-level purpose and return behavior, though it stops short of explicit use-case guidance. This is nearly complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only summarizes outputs. The schema's own descriptions for prompt, mode, system, context, certificate, and email are already explicit.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Detection and analysis of prompt injection, jailbreak, and policy-bypass attempts.' It names concrete attack classes and lists expected outputs (risk score, recommendation, indicators, safe rewrite), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from the sibling audit/search tools.

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 the tool is for validating prompts for injection and policy-bypass, but it never explicitly states when to prefer it over alternatives or what scenarios are out of scope. No exclusions or sibling routing are provided, so an agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.

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