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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose meaningful behavior: it performs no network calls and strips private data before processing. It still says nothing about the shape or determinism of the result, so it falls short of fully transparent.

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 with no filler; the core action and its detection scope are front-loaded, and the parenthetical enumeration of tactics earns its space by defining boundaries.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally say what a scan produces (findings, scores, flags). It covers what the tool does and its privacy/offline behavior but leaves the return value and the 'lang' input unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the two parameters. It only implicitly covers 'text' via 'pitch message' and never mentions the 'lang' parameter or its default of 'en', leaving half the input surface undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb (scan) and resource (crypto pitch message) and even enumerates the tactic classes it detects, so the scope is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like check_token or get_report, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 phrase 'crypto pitch message' implies the input context in which this tool applies, and 'without touching the network' hints at a safe, offline use case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternatives named among check_token, explain_finding, get_report, or token_history.

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