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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds that findings are evidence-based, not accusations, and that it reflects recent scans. This complements the annotations without contradiction.

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?

Two concise sentences, with the core definition front-loaded and the caveat placed at the end. No fluff.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the nature of results, the time window, and the intended interpretation. It lacks only an explanation of the limit parameter's effect, which is a minor 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?

The description does not mention the 'limit' parameter, which has no schema description (0% coverage). The agent is left to infer its meaning from the default value, so the description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 returns tokens with HIGH or CRITICAL structural risk from scans in the last 30 days, with findings named. It explicitly distinguishes itself from price verdicts and trade lists, making it distinct from siblings like rh_token_safety.

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 explains the purpose is to show the current wave of bad launches and explicitly warns against using it as a trade list, giving clear context on when it's appropriate. It doesn't name alternative tools but provides solid situational guidance.

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