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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral content by enumerating the detection categories the scan covers, which is more than a restatement of the name. However, it never states whether the tool is read-only or enforcing—the Spanish text says 'Bloquea' (blocks) while the English says 'Scan,' leaving side effects ambiguous—and it says nothing about return format, severity output, or limits.

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 same information is delivered three times in English, Spanish, and Chinese, tripling length without adding new detail; the Spanish and Chinese variants are vaguer than the English. The English block is front-loaded well, but the duplicated payload is a substantial token cost for a short tool.

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?

For a security-audit tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain result shape, enforcement semantics, and the unexplained requiredSections parameter. None of these are addressed, so an agent cannot predict what it will get back or how to set all three inputs.

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 supply parameter meaning. 'SKILL.md, prompts & scripts' loosely maps to skillMarkdown and bundledScripts, but the third parameter, requiredSections, is never mentioned anywhere—an agent gets no clue what section names are expected or how they affect results. Two of three parameters remain underspecified.

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 English section names a specific verb (Scan) plus concrete resources (SKILL.md, prompts, scripts) and concrete threat classes (.env/PRIVATE_KEY exfiltration, eval/child_process, Base64 droppers, zero-width Unicode). The 'Vertical 5 (Agent Skills & MCP Plugins)' label also distinguishes it from the other audit_*_escrow verticals. It stops short of 5 only because the non-English repeats are less precise and no sibling is explicitly contrasted.

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 'Vertical 5 (Agent Skills & MCP Plugins)' implies the domain in which this tool applies, so an agent can infer it is for auditing skill packages rather than inference, GPU SLAs, or backtests. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative among the sibling audit tools, leaving selection to inference.

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