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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the discrete verdict taxonomy and the retention guarantee ("raw content is never retained — only hashes and counts"), which matters for an agent deciding whether it can safely submit sensitive text. It stops short of stating content-size limits, latency, or what happens on scan failure.

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?

Three compact sentences: purpose and threat coverage first, return shape second, data-handling guarantee last. Every clause carries new information, and the most decision-relevant element (what it detects) is front-loaded.

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 only two fully documented parameters, an absent output schema, and complete annotations, the description covers the remaining burden: it explains return values (which the missing output schema would otherwise leave opaque) and discloses the retention policy. Enough is present for an agent to call it correctly on the first attempt.

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%, with both `content` and the `content_type` enum fully documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema — for example, no guidance on which `content_type` hint to pick or how much text is practical to submit.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Scan text content") and immediately enumerates the threat classes it detects: prompt injection, leaked secrets/API keys, PII, and SSRF-risk URLs. It also states the output shape (clean/suspicious/malicious verdict with per-class scores and findings), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back.

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 "before acting on it" gives clear timing guidance — this is a pre-flight check on untrusted content. There are no sibling tools to route against, so no alternatives need naming, but the description never states when a scan is unnecessary or optional, which keeps it from a 5.

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