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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that the tool is deterministic, has no LLM in the hot path, runs in seconds, returns HTTP 402 until payment is presented, and is benchmarked to flag fixed code as often as vulnerable. It also notes the repo is untrusted content and never instructions to follow.

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 long and not front-loaded: it opens with payment details and HTTP 402 behavior before stating the tool's purpose, which is buried inside the untrusted-provider-content block. While the information is valuable, the structure makes it harder for an agent to quickly identify what the tool does.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully compensates by describing the result format: severity levels, CWE mapping, file:line, code evidence, suggested fixes, and severity counts. It also covers cost, payment finality, runtime, limitations, and alternatives, so nothing critical is missing for correct 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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by saying the repo can be 'owner/name or a GitHub URL' and shows the request shape as 'POST {repo, ref?}', which clarifies usage beyond the schema's minimal 'GitHub repo as owner/name'.

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's function: 'Static pattern scan of a Solana/Anchor Rust repository' and lists concrete checks (missing signer checks, PDA collisions, arithmetic overflow, etc.). It also differentiates itself from sol-quick-scan and single-file reads, making its scope unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'use it to find spots worth a human look, never as an audit verdict' and names alternatives: 'For a one-line risk triage of one contract use sol-quick-scan instead; to read a single known file rather than a repo, fetch it yourself.' It also warns against treating it as a vulnerability detector.

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