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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does contribute one genuinely useful non-schema fact: the x402 payment model (0.02 USDC on Base, pay-per-use). However, it never states what the tool returns (verdict, risk score, block/pass), whether it is read-only or has side effects, or any latency/rate-limit characteristics.

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 opens with the noise prefix 'Auto-created from research' and ends mid-sentence ('antes de que un agent'), leaving the core value proposition broken. The pricing bracket is appended mid-sentence in an awkward position. Structure is poor and the sentence does not earn its length.

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-screening tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a truncated description, the definition is materially incomplete: an agent cannot tell what a scan returns, whether a finding blocks execution, or how this differs from the many sibling scanners. Only the payment model is supplied.

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 whose schema description is just 'entrada' (input), at 100% nominal coverage. The description's enumeration of scanned surfaces (prompts, outputs, agent messages) hints at acceptable input content, which is marginally more useful than the schema's placeholder, but adds no format or size guidance. Baseline 3 applies for high coverage with no meaningful param elaboration.

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 gives a specific verb (Escanea) and enumerates the resources scanned (prompts, outputs, inter-agent messages) plus three detection targets (indirect prompt injection, identity spoofing, unauthorized compliance). That is a concrete, recognizable purpose. It falls short of 5 because, despite a dense sibling set (agent-injection-firewall, agent-injection-scanner, injection-guard, prompt-injection-scanner, agent-guard-scan), it draws no boundary against any of them.

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 truncated clause 'antes de que un agent...' gestures at a pre-flight screening use case, but the sentence never completes, so the timing advice is unusable. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative selection guidance relative to the near-identical security siblings.

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