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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool runs detectors, reports only remaining classical crypto, and operates on code snippets rather than the filesystem. While it doesn't explicitly state side effects or return format, its analysis-oriented behavior is reasonably transparent for a verification tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no redundant filler. Every clause adds information, including the filesystem exclusion and the parameter guidance.

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?

The description covers purpose, input requirements, and scope exclusions sufficiently for a 3-parameter tool with no output schema. It doesn't explain the exact format of the report, but the return behavior is implied well enough for selection and invocation.

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% and each parameter is described. The description adds guidance that 'code' should be provided along with 'language' or 'filename', which helps the agent understand parameter selection, though 'plus' could be misread as implying the optional parameters are required.

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 clearly states the tool runs detectors over a code snippet and reports remaining classical crypto. It explicitly distinguishes from filesystem scanning ('NOT the filesystem'), and the verb 'confirm an edit actually removed' makes the purpose specific and actionable.

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?

It explicitly says to use it to confirm an edit removed quantum-vulnerable usage, and excludes filesystem scanning as a scope. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or describe when not to use it beyond the filesystem distinction.

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