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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false): it discloses workspace creation side effects, the token secrecy requirement, a 90-second wait bound, GPU analysis of the top 0-5 findings, and a summary + next-steps return. These are exactly the operational facts an agent needs before committing to a long, non-idempotent call.

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?

A single compact block with the core action first, then preconditions, side effects, timing bound, and parameter rules. No filler sentences, and each clause carries distinct operational information.

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 5-parameter, no-output-schema, open-world orchestration tool, this covers timing, side effects, and idempotency well. It stops short of describing failure/timeout behavior after the 90-second wait or what happens if the repo is private, which would matter for a blocking call.

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?

With 0% schema coverage the description must carry the load, and it does for most parameters: workspace_token (empty means create), max_analyses (0-5, controls GPU analysis breadth), request_id (same-request reuse only), and repository_url scope. The `authorized` boolean is only obliquely implied by 'user is authorized to scan' and never explicitly tied to a parameter value.

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 and resource ('One call security audit of a PUBLIC GitHub repo') and scopes it to authorized scans of public repos. The 'one call' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling chain (create_workspace → start_scan → start_analysis → audit_status) it orchestrates.

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?

Gives clear preconditions (public repo, user authorized) and rules (reuse request_id only for the same request, empty workspace_token triggers workspace creation). It doesn't explicitly route to alternatives such as start_scan or audit_status for polling, so the comparison is left to inference.

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