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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it reports the ~35s runtime, that the spec is sent through live adversarial probes, the two-part execution model, and what is returned. It stops short of disclosing limits an agent would want — rate limits or quotas on 'free' scans, whether the spec is retained, and what happens on probe failure.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the value proposition and duration, then the mechanism, then the return payload. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return contents — 0-100 risk score, per-finding evidence, and guardrail sentences per gap. Combined with a single fully documented parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter already documented as 'Your agent / system prompt (>=20 chars)', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further detail about the spec format (e.g., whether it accepts multi-message transcripts or only a single prompt string), so it does not improve on the schema.

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 — a free LLM agent security review — and then enumerates exactly what it does: 8 live adversarial probes plus a deterministic static audit of the spec. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like get_scan_result (which fetches results) or get_pricing without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Free' and by the input being an agent spec, so the context of use is reasonably clear. However, it never states when to prefer this over a paid/other scan, what happens if results are needed later (i.e., that get_scan_result exists for retrieval), or any prerequisites such as spec length beyond the schema's minimum.

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