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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the returned fields and a specific safety invariant ('never safe:true with unclassified residue, motivo: nao-medido'), which tells the agent how to interpret ambiguous results.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The 'motivo: nao-medido' token is a domain-specific jargon fragment that is slightly cryptic but compact.

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 carries the burden of naming return fields (safe/canShare/motivo/reason) and the key invariant, which it does. It is complete enough for a simple one-parameter predicate, though it omits any note on cost or latency.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already documents 'text' as the text to check. The description adds no per-parameter detail but has nothing left to compensate for, so the 0-1 param baseline of 4 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 verb+resource: a boolean safety check on text for public sharing. An agent can distinguish this from guard_inspect and guard_scan_pii at a high level, though the description never explicitly contrasts the three siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance or condition selecting this tool over guard_inspect or guard_scan_pii. The phrase 'for public sharing' hints at context but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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