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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output behavior ('Returns each hit with severity and the migration path') and the range of inputs, but does not explicitly state it is read-only or discuss potential side effects like network fetch. This is adequate for a scanning/checking 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then provides concrete examples and output details. It is efficient without being overly brief, but could be tightened slightly by trimming redundant examples.

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 tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains what inputs are accepted and what the output includes (hits with severity and migration path), which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It does not detail exact detection logic, but that is not required.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'input' parameter as 'Source code, a dependency list, or an http(s) URL to fetch and scan'. The description repeats this and adds nothing new about parameter format or constraints, 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?

The description names the specific verb 'Check' with the resource being code, package lists, or URLs, and enumerates concrete deprecated APIs (OpenAI Assistants, Google Content API, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like flipworth_resale_scan and website_audit.

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 provides clear context on what the tool does and the types of inputs it accepts, making it obvious when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the specificity of the deprecation focus gives strong contextual guidance.

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