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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds the materially useful facts that no scan is launched and no credits are consumed, which the annotations do not cover. The only gap is that it doesn't indicate the form of the returned guidance (a document, checklist, or structured text), so it's strong but not fully transparent.

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?

Three tight sentences: the primary instruction first, the sibling routing second, and the safety reassurance last. Every clause carries information — no filler, no repetition of the title.

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 zero-parameter, read-only onboarding tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sequencing, alternatives, and side-effect safety. The only missing piece is a hint about what the returned guidance looks like, which matters slightly more because there is no output schema to describe it.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify and it correctly avoids inventing parameter talk. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty object schema makes the no-input nature unambiguous.

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 names a specific action (explaining the API/MCP flow, scan modes, target verification, and user authorization declaration) rather than restating the tool name. It also explicitly separates itself from action tools by stating 'Tarama başlatmaz' (does not start a scan), so an agent can tell it apart from vulkill_start_scan or vulkill_auto_scan without opening a schema.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Yeni bağlantıda önce bu aracı kullanın' — use this tool first on a new connection) and routes follow-up needs to named siblings: vulkill_wallet_status for balance and vulkill_capabilities for feature lookup. That is concrete when-to-use plus alternatives, leaving nothing to inference.

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