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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Security scan', which is vague and does not indicate whether the operation is read-only, what it checks, whether it has side effects, or any other behavioral details. The description adds no context beyond the tool's name and basic purpose.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and target. There is no filler or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 simple two-parameter schema and the presence of an output schema (not detailed here, but noted in context), the description is sufficient for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and how to invoke it. It could benefit from a brief note on what the scan returns, but that is covered by the output schema.

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 schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (path and package_name) with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters and the description does not expand on them.

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 states a specific action ('Security scan') and a clear resource ('an MCP server or skill package'), which distinguishes it from the sibling tool trust_scan_file that likely targets files. It is concise and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling.

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 phrase 'before trusting it' provides a general usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus trust_scan_file or any other alternative. The description implies a pre-trust evaluation but leaves the choice criteria to the agent.

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