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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It discloses the payment cost, bounded deterministic local scanning, the absence of external LLM/provider calls, the 100000-character limit, and what the tool returns. Nothing in the description contradicts schema or annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: it leads with cost and core purpose, then gives usage timing, outputs, technical behavior, and limits. Every sentence adds distinct value without repetition or filler.

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 that an output schema exists, the description covers the remaining essential context: cost, when to use, input types, size constraints, determinism, privacy behavior, and output expectations. An agent has enough information to select and invoke this 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It elaborates on content by listing accepted formats and the character limit, and it effectively explains the content_type options in plain language. The optional `source` parameter is not described, but its role is inferable as an identifier for the scanned content.

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 and object: 'Scan untrusted text, HTML, Markdown, email, document text, API responses, and tool outputs.' It clearly explains what is scanned and what output is returned (risk score, categories, recommendation, sanitized text), and its content-scanning focus differentiates it from sibling tools like check_url and invoice_preflight.

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 explicit timing guidance: scan content 'before your agent adds them to context, follows their instructions, or acts.' It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but the supported content types make the intended use clear.

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