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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: findings are reported "without returning their values," which tells the agent secrets are not echoed back. It stops short of describing what is returned (counts, pattern names, positions, severity) or any limits on input size.

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 tight sentence with the key safety guarantee attached, front-loaded with the verb. No filler, no redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only scan, purpose plus the non-echoing guarantee covers most of what an agent needs to invoke it. The main remaining gap is the shape of the result (matches vs. boolean vs. counts), which matters more here because no output schema exists.

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?

There is one parameter, "text," with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema says nothing about it and the description must compensate. The description implies the parameter is the content to be scanned, but adds no format, size, encoding, or structural guidance, leaving the only undocumented parameter essentially unelaborated.

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?

Specific verb+resource: "Detect likely embedded tokens and private keys." An agent immediately knows this is a secret-pattern scanner over supplied text. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors such as privi_log_redact or privi_payload_hash, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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?

States no conditions for when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., redaction vs. detection vs. hashing), and no prerequisites or exclusions. The word "likely" hints at heuristic detection but the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice.

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