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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses what the tool checks (prompt-injection, data exfiltration, dangerous code, hidden Unicode, instruction overrides), output format (risk score 0-100, SAFE/WARN/BLOCK verdict, structured findings), pricing, and performance characteristics (fast, cheap, deterministic, high-volume).

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?

The description is well-structured with two main sentences followed by a list of threats and a pricing note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and action. While packed with useful information, it could be slightly more concise by grouping some details, but it is not wasteful.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, input, output format, pricing, and performance. It explains the output (risk score, verdict, findings) sufficiently for an AI agent to invoke and interpret results.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'content' is raw data to scan before ingestion and that 'source_type' is optional with example values (skill, webpage, user_input, tool_output, document). This context enriches the schema's brief descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool scans external content for security threats (prompt-injection, data exfiltration, etc.) before ingestion. It uses specific verbs ('scan') and resources ('external content'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on other security/verification tasks.

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 explicitly says 'before an agent INGESTS it' and lists content types (SKILL.md, web page, user input, tool output), providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving minor room for improvement.

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