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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by disclosing the return format (structured risk report with severity levels and remediation) and the scope of checks. It also implies network access via 'endpoint,' aligning with openWorldHint. There is no contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. The enumeration of vulnerability types is dense but each item adds useful scope information. No filler or redundancy.

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 3 params, a oneOf constraint, and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it scans, what it returns, and the concrete vulnerability categories. It does not explain the oneOf constraint, but the schema covers that, and the output schema handles return structure. Minor gap: no mention of network behavior beyond 'endpoint,' but annotations help.

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%, with both manifestUrl and manifestJson fully described including mutual exclusivity. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so 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 clearly states the tool scans an MCP server manifest or endpoint for security vulnerabilities, enumerating specific vulnerability types. This is a specific verb+resource+scope that fully distinguishes it from sibling tools, none of which are security scanners.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool—when you need to scan an MCP server manifest or endpoint for vulnerabilities. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the unique purpose and absence of comparable siblings, the guidance is sufficient.

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