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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool alerts on potential breaches but does not disclose what counts as sensitive information, whether the input is stored or transmitted, whether alerts are blocking or advisory, or anything about latency/limits. Only the pay-per-use cost (0.03 USDC on Base) is disclosed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence stating the core function, plus a bracketed payment note. Efficient, though the 'Auto-created from research' prefix is noise that does not help tool selection.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the alert/result looks like and how findings are surfaced, but it does not. For a security-scanning tool whose output shape (findings, severity, breach classification) drives downstream action, this is a meaningful 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% for the single parameter, but the schema description is only the placeholder word 'entrada', adding no meaning. The tool description indirectly implies the parameter is the agent output text to be scanned, which is modest added value, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource: scanning AI agent outputs for sensitive information disclosure with alerting. It is clearly distinguishable in intent from generic scanners like prompt-injection-scanner, though it never explicitly names sibling alternatives to route against.

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 guidance on when to invoke this versus related security siblings (agent-guard-scan, identity-spoofing-detector, prompt-injection-scanner). The only contextual cue is the x402 payment note, which tells the agent it costs money but not when the scan is warranted.

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