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

The description discloses the underlying methodology (lexical + structural pattern matching, not semantic classifier) and explains the output (per-category risk plus named rules). This goes beyond the basic annotations, providing substantial transparency about limitations and behavior.

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 two sentences, tightly packed with purpose, method, output, and usage context. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, how it works, what it returns, and when to use it. It even clarifies limitations (not a calibrated CI gate) and provides an example of output ('named rules that fired'). This is comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (text and categories) with the default for categories. The description adds little beyond listing the categories, which is already in the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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's function: scanning text for toxic language, hate speech, and other categories. It also distinctively identifies the tool as a toxicity scanner among many siblings, with no ambiguity.

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 provides explicit usage context ('LLM safety guardrail testing and triage') and cautions that it is not a calibrated CI gate. While it doesn't name alternatives, it gives clear guidance on appropriate use cases.

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