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

The description discloses substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it updates security alerts, checks Royal MCP accounts, reads existing plugin scan results rather than starting new scans, runs EMCP scans with a daily malware limit, reuses results from the last five minutes, exposes run.busy and run.limited states, and describes per-site rate limits. These are meaningful side effects, caching rules, and constraints that an agent needs before calling.

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 content is valuable but packed into one very long, clause-heavy sentence that is difficult to parse. It is front-loaded with the main action, but the structure and length reduce readability.

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 complex sweep tool with no output schema, it covers the important invocation behavior, side effects, caching, and rate limits. It mentions run.busy and run.limited but does not fully describe the return shape, leaving a modest 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?

Although schema coverage is already 100%, the description adds important meaning to site_ids: it checks only those sites, leaves other sites alone, does not count as the fleet-wide last check, does not consume daily on-demand passes, and is capped at 12 checks per site per day. This goes well beyond the schema's basic 'omit to check every site' note.

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: run the security sweep now across every connected site, with plugin-specific coverage. It is detailed enough to identify the operation, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings such as fleet__scan_security or recipe__security_status.

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 gives operational conditions such as using site_ids to check only selected sites and returning a recent pass instead of rerunning, but it never explicitly names when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Usage is implied rather than clearly routed against sibling tools.

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