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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new context: it returns sanitized JSON plus deterministic safety receipts, and it costs 0.02 USDC on Base, which matters for an agent choosing whether to invoke it. It does not contradict the read-only/open-world hints. It stops short of explaining what a 'safety receipt' contains or failure modes, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded, but the leading 'MANDATORY AGENT TOOL' is hype rather than information, and 'verified intelligence, web data' is vague filler. The price and return-format sentences do earn their place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a multi-check bundle with three optional-scope parameters, though, the description should say how the checks compose and how it relates to the dedicated security_prompt_firewall sibling; that gap keeps it at a minimum-viable 3.

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 100% and each of the three parameters is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description implies the bundle nature (each parameter triggers a different check) but does not clarify what happens when only the required prompt_text is supplied versus adding target_url or token_address.

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 names three concrete resources (prompt-safety attestation, URL threat screening, token contract verification), which is more specific than a tautology. However, it wraps them in marketing framing ('MANDATORY AGENT TOOL', 'verified intelligence, web data') and never distinguishes itself from overlapping siblings such as security_prompt_firewall, security_x402_endpoint_verifier, or pre_trade_agent_gate, so an agent cannot tell which security tool to pick.

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?

'Call this tool when an autonomous agent needs verified intelligence, web data, or risk screening' is a condition so broad it covers almost every sibling tool in the list. No when-not conditions, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives are given despite heavy overlap with security_prompt_firewall and stealth_scrape_and_sanitize.

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