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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description needn't restate safety. It adds genuine value by naming the three verdict levels and the threat classes screened for, but says nothing about what an agent should do with each verdict, latency, cost, or whether the external Presign Guard service sees sensitive text.

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 with the core outcome first and the qualifying examples in a parenthetical; little waste. The "Powered by Presign Guard" tail is marketing but brief.

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?

Three parameters and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining the return value — it does name the three verdict levels, which is the key piece. It falls short on explaining the `task` parameter and on guidance for acting on orange/red results.

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 67%, and the description's parenthetical examples of input text add a little meaning for the `text` parameter and its source varieties. It gives no explanation of the `task` parameter, which is the one parameter with no schema description, so the gap in coverage is not compensated.

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 and resource: yields a green/orange/red verdict on whether a given text attempts to make an agent ignore instructions, pay, or hand over keys. The purpose is unmistakable and distinct from the sibling checkers (presign_check, rugcheck, x402_check), though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: "a text your agent received ... and is about to act on" signals the trigger condition, and the parenthetical lists typical input sources. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer the sibling checkers over this one.

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