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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool's purpose but does not disclose important behavioral traits such as the exact output format (likely a boolean or a report with details about detected threats), whether it blocks execution or just flags issues, performance characteristics like latency, or any dependencies (e.g., needs multiple messages). It also does not mention the pay-per-use cost implications beyond the pricing note in brackets.

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 a single sentence that concisely states the purpose and includes a pricing note. It is front-loaded with the primary function and avoids unnecessary filler. The only deviation is the bracket pricing info, which is arguably extraneous to tool selection but not harmful.

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 security-critical nature of the tool, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on input format, output structure (none provided), potential risks of false positives/negatives, and any operational constraints. The tool's complexity is moderate (one param), but for a security tool, agents need to know how to interpret results and whether it takes action. The pricing note is a nice touch but does not compensate for missing operational guidance.

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 input schema is minimal with one string parameter 'input' and schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the schema already names the parameter. However, the description does not clarify what 'input' should contain—does it expect raw agent messages, a JSON with message provenance, or a prompt to check? Since the description is in Spanish and the tool is for security scanning, more detail on input format would be helpful. But the schema already defines it as a generic string, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond that.

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 that the tool scans instructions and messages between agents to detect indirect prompt injection, identity spoofing, and unauthorized compliance before execution. This is a specific verb ('escanea') with a clear resource (instructions/messages between agents) and a distinct security purpose, which helps differentiate it from many other tools in the broad sibling list, though it doesn't name specific siblings.

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 implies when to use it—when needing to scan agent communications for security threats—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like 'agent-security-audit' or 'injection-guard'. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions or comparison to related tools.

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