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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the x402 payment model (0.02 USDC on Base, pay-per-use), which is useful, but it omits critical behavioral details: what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, score, findings), whether it blocks or only flags, any rate limits, and whether it is read-only. These gaps are significant for a security scanner.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides payment context. However, the opening 'Auto-created from research:' is meta-noise that does not help an agent, and the payment bracket is a bit of a tangent, though still relevant.

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 scanner with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns and how to interpret results. It does not. It also fails to differentiate from closely related sibling tools (e.g., agent-injection-scanner, injection-guard), leaving an agent without enough context to call it correctly in the presence of alternatives.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, but the single parameter is documented only as 'entrada' (input). The description adds some semantic value by specifying that the input can be 'texto, documentos o instrucciones externas,' clarifying the accepted content types beyond the generic schema description.

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: it analyzes text, documents, or external instructions to detect indirect prompt injection patterns and unauthorized compliance before an agent processes them. This is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from sibling security tools such as agent-injection-scanner, injection-guard, or agent-injection-firewall.

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 phrase 'antes de que un agente los procese' implies a usage context (pre-processing of external input), but the description offers no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling security tools.

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