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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is static (no endpoint testing), returns a signed receipt, and notes pricing tiers. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or if it has side effects, but for a preflight tool, the behavior is reasonably clear.

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 three sentences with no fluff. The first sentence delivers the primary purpose, the second adds pricing, and the third clarifies limitations and next steps. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (7 parameters, nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main operation and pricing but omits parameter guidance. It is adequate only if the output schema explains the return value sufficiently.

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 description does not explain any of the 7 parameters, despite 0% schema description coverage. It mentions 'static Security Preflight' but provides no detail on what 'manifest', 'policy', or other fields mean. This forces the agent to guess their purpose.

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 action ('Run a $1 static Security Preflight') and the output ('return a signed receipt'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on running the preflight rather than describing agents (describe_agent) or retrieving existing receipts (get_security_receipt).

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 clarifies that no endpoint is tested and that importing the receipt is a separate step, providing helpful context on what the tool does and does not do. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus its siblings.

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