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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, not idempotent). The description adds critical non-schema behavior: calling returns a 402 with PAYMENT-REQUIRED and the caller must pay 0.75 USDC and resend with a PAYMENT-SIGNATURE header. That payment protocol is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express. The mixed-language presentation slightly reduces clarity but the flow is fully disclosed.

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?

Purpose and the key call-before-merging guidance are front-loaded, but the body mixes English and Japanese, includes an inline JSON example that duplicates the schema, and the payment explanation is wordy. Some content earns its place (the 402 flow) but the overall packaging is cluttered.

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 explaining returns and does so (line-numbered findings, severity, concrete fix). Combined with the payment flow and safety annotations, an agent has enough to invoke correctly. Only the language mixing leaves minor ambiguity.

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 description coverage is 100%, documenting both 'code' (10-60,000 chars) and 'language'. The description only repeats an example input object, adding no syntax or constraint meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (reviews), resource (source code), and describes the output precisely: line-numbered findings with severity and a concrete fix. It even names the detection methods (static rules for eval/SQL concat/secrets/shell injection plus AI review), so the agent knows exactly what class of tool this is.

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?

Explicitly says to call it 'before merging or running untrusted code', giving a clear trigger context. It does not name a when-not condition or compare to the sibling buy_* services, so it falls short of the full 5.

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