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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it discloses useful behavior: findings are Merkle-committed, the report is signed, and each call costs $5.00 USDC. However, it does not state the return format, whether the audit is read-only beyond the implication of an audit, or what happens if the audit process fails.

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?

Two sentences plus one pricing parenthetical, all front-loaded and free of filler. It states the action, scope, context, output commitment, and cost efficiently.

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?

The tool is a paid audit operation with no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not specify the report's shape, verdict format, or how to interpret the signed/Merkle-committed evidence. It also leaves the relationship to several sibling security/audit tools unexplained.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'task' already has a schema description ('Task/query text for this SKU'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 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?

States a specific purpose: it performs an independent multi-agent security audit of a counterparty agent or MCP server, scoped to OWASP ASI01-ASI10, before granting access or spend authority. This is clear but does not explicitly contrast with sibling audit tools, so it narrowly misses the top score.

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?

Provides a clear trigger condition ('before you grant it tool access or spend authority'), which tells an agent when this audit is appropriate. It does not list exclusions or name alternatives such as security.enterprise-audit or security.massat-conformance, so it is not fully explicit.

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