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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains what the tool detects and when, but gives no detail about return format, whether it modifies input, how verdicts are expressed, or false-positive behavior. The pricing note adds operational context but not behavioral transparency.

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 core purpose is delivered in a single efficient sentence, with the pricing detail cleanly appended. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name exists.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what input to provide and the intended effect. It does not state what the result looks like, which would improve completeness, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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%, so the lone parameter is already documented as a required string input. The description adds value by suggesting the input can be text, tool output, or an inter-agent message, but it does not provide formatting or content syntax beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Scans'), concrete input types ('text, tool outputs, or inter-agent messages'), and a precise goal ('detect indirect prompt injection attempts before they reach the agent's context'). It distinguishes itself from the many sibling tools by focusing on security scanning without needing to name an alternative.

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 makes the trigger condition clear: use it when untrusted text, tool outputs, or inter-agent messages need to be screened for prompt injection before entering context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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