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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait — "Stateless" — and defines the exact flagging logic and threshold, which is real value. However, it never states what the analysis returns (no output schema exists), whether hits are grouped per actor session, or how partial/ambiguous cases are treated, leaving notable gaps for a detector 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the statelessness, the two detection rules, the threshold, and an example with no filler. It is dense with domain jargon but each clause earns its place; slightly more structure (separating rule from threshold) would improve it.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the input side adequately via the schema but is silent on results: an agent cannot know whether it receives a list of flagged sessions, scores, or matched evidence. For a rule-based analyzer whose entire purpose is producing findings, that return-side gap is material.

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% and the single `rows` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including every expected field (actor_session_hash, cf_asn, endpoint_path, canary_key_source, created_at). The prose description never mentions `rows` or the required field composition, so it adds nothing beyond the schema; baseline 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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource framing ("key-laundering burst analyzer") and names precise detection conditions: >= 3 distinct canaries replayed, or mangled /chat/completions base-URL concatenations with a concrete example (/oauth/token/chat/completions). An agent knows this is a forensic detection pass over supplied events, not a generic inspector. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many inspect_* siblings, which keeps it below a 5.

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 detection thresholds imply when the tool is applicable (burst/replay analysis over scrubbed forensic events), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative for related checks. The criteria function as an implicit usage condition rather than routing guidance.

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