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 known; the description goes beyond them by guaranteeing 'Nothing is stored' and by previewing the response (a 0-100 readiness score and a per-finding fix). It stops short of describing scan depth, timeouts, or how findings are ordered.

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?

One front-loaded sentence naming the targets first, then the return value, then the non-storage guarantee. No filler, and every clause contributes distinct information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by stating what comes back (score and fix per finding). Combined with fully documented parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, with both `code` (max 200 KB) and `filename` documented inline. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond restating that source code or config text is the input, so the schema carries the load and the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Find') with an enumerated set of concrete targets (RSA, elliptic-curve, Diffie-Hellman, DSA, weak hashes, 128-bit ciphers) and states the output shape (0-100 readiness score plus a fix per finding). This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which are optimization/status/verify utilities rather than scanners.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent infers it should call this when it has code or config text to audit. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no reference to any sibling tool, though the siblings operate on different domains so mis-selection risk is low.

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