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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Nothing is published by this tool,' which is the key expectation an agent needs before calling it. It also discloses the privacy-scan behavior, though it says nothing about what the scan returns or how failures are handled.

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 sentences, and the restrictive trigger condition is front-loaded before the behavioral detail. Every sentence carries information; only the middle sentence is slightly dense with three bundled actions.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, trigger, side-effect profile, and the privacy-scan step. The only gap is what the scan result or guidance output looks like, which is a minor omission given no output schema exists.

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%, with both parameters documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or syntax detail about 'filename' or 'code' beyond what the schema already states.

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 verb+resource chain: check the agent, scan it for personal details, explain how to publish it to the public registry. It clearly differs from write tools, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling check_agent, whose name implies the same 'check the agent' step, leaving some overlap ambiguous.

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 condition ('Use only when the user says they want to share an agent they built'), which is a clear usage gate. However, it names no alternative for adjacent intents (e.g., check_agent for a plain validation), so the when-not guidance is partial.

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