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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial behavioral context: 'Reads headers and tables only; runs nothing,' certificate/signature presence is 'never checked,' and it is 'pure standard library, no network or model.' The one shortfall is that it does not describe failure behavior or the exact return shape, keeping it short of 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?

Front-loaded with purpose and format scope, then returns, then safety constraints; every clause carries information. It is dense and slightly overpacked into two long sentences, but there is no filler.

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 fully enumerates what the tool returns (format, type, architecture, bitness, entry point, sections with offset/size/address/flags/entropy, imports/exports, resources, signature presence, .NET flag). Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, and the description largely restates the size cap and format list. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds little semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read the structure of') and resource ('a program file') and enumerates the exact accepted formats (PE, ELF, Mach-O, thin/universal). This clearly separates it from siblings such as inspect_apk, extract_strings, and find_data, which operate on different inputs or produce different outputs.

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 gives rich input constraints (base64 encoding, 2,000,000-byte cap, supported formats) which implicitly tell the agent when the tool applies, but it never names an alternative or states when to prefer inspect_apk, extract_strings, or find_data instead. Usage is therefore implied rather than directed.

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