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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait the schema cannot: a pay-per-use x402 model costing 0.05 USDC on Base. However, it omits auth requirements, whether the audit is read-only, and what happens to supplied data.

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 content is reasonably sized and the purpose clause is front-loaded after the tag, but the 'Auto-created from research:' prefix is noise and the definition mixes Spanish and English. Sentences earn their place except for that metadata prefix.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify input format and expected result, and it does neither. It also leaves the heavy overlap with sibling auditing tools entirely unaddressed, so an agent cannot confidently select it.

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 nominally 100%, which sets the baseline at 3, and the description weakly implies the single input is a prompt or configuration to audit. But the schema field description is just 'entrada', so the description adds no format or content guidance for what the agent should actually pass.

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 (audits) and resource (prompts and configurations of AI agents), plus the exact vulnerability classes it detects: prompt injection, spoofing, and excessive permissions under Zero Trust. This is concrete, but it does not differentiate from the many near-identical siblings such as zero-trust-agent-audit, prompt-injection-scanner, or agent-injection-scanner.

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 versus its many overlapping siblings. The reader cannot tell whether this duplicates zero-trust-agent-audit or zero-trust-policy-check, and no prerequisites or trigger conditions are given.

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