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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds contextual behavior: it returns findings with severity and highlights what types of secrets are detected. This goes beyond the annotations, revealing the tool's output characteristics without contradicting the declared safety profile.

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 three sentences: the first defines the core action and scope, the second states the return value, and the third gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, informative, and contains no filler words.

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 the presence of a complete input schema (100% coverage) and an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, target content, return behavior, and usage context. It is fully adequate for an agent 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameters 'input' and 'filename' are fully described in the schema. The description does not provide additional parameter-level details beyond implying that 'input' contains code/config content. 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 explicitly states the tool scans code/config files for hardcoded secrets and provides a comprehensive list of secret types (AWS keys, GitHub tokens, API keys, etc.). It uses a specific verb 'scan' and resource, making the purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from generic scanning 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 gives a clear usage directive: 'Run before every commit.' This provides strong contextual guidance, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool. The lack of exclusions makes it a 4 rather than a 5.

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