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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a pay-per-use model (0.05 USDC on Base), which is genuine added context, but that clause is embedded and truncated mid-sentence. Nothing is said about what the scan consumes or returns, what auth/settlement is required, runtime limits, or what a successful vs. failed audit looks like.

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?

It is a single sentence, so it is not bloated, but the 'Auto-created from research:' prefix is meta noise and the final clause trails off into a bracketed payment tag that appears disconnected from 'fuga de'. Front-loading the verb 'audita' is the one structural strength.

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 security-audit tool with one opaque input, no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what artifact to submit and what the caller gets back. It explains neither, leaving an agent unable to construct a valid call with confidence.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema technically documents it, and the baseline for high coverage is 3. However the schema's own description is the meaningless string 'entrada', and the tool description adds nothing about whether 'input' is a raw prompt, a tool manifest, or a JSON config bundle.

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 and resource: auditing prompts, tools and configurations of autonomous agents for indirect injection vulnerabilities, unauthorized compliance and leakage. That is a clear purpose, but it does nothing to separate this tool from close siblings such as agent-injection-firewall, injection-guard, agent-security-audit or zero-trust-agent-audit. The 'Auto-created from research:' preamble and the truncated '...fuga de [x402: 0.05 USDC on Base, pay-per-use]' tail add noise rather than clarity.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling (firewall, guard, audit) to prefer. An agent facing a dozen adjacent security tools has no routing signal at all in this text.

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