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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that definitions are examined and discarded, only names and hashes are recorded, and that absence of findings is never reported as 'safe' but as 'no findings'. It also notes the grading (observed/suspected) and that the service is free with no account. This is thorough, though it doesn't mention the network behavior of the server fetch (covered in the schema) or any rate limits.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds substantive information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then logically flows through input, findings, grading, data handling, and access. No fluff, but it could be slightly tighter without losing key details.

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?

The tool is complex and has no output schema, so the description should ideally specify the exact return format. It says 'Get back findings' and mentions grading, but does not describe the structure of the findings object (e.g., list of rule IDs, severity, evidence). This is a notable gap for an agent needing to interpret results reliably. However, the description covers many other aspects (data handling, constraints), so it's not severely incomplete.

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 schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by specifying the 64KB limit for tools, the exact-one-of-tools-or-server constraint, and the shape of the tools array as returned by tools/list. This goes beyond the schema's basic type definitions.

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: 'Check a tool definition before you trust it.' It clearly explains what it does (sends tools or server, returns findings against rules) and distinguishes itself from siblings like ghost_check and poison_check by focusing on tool definitions. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 clear context for when to use it ('before you trust it') and specifies input constraints (exactly one of tools or server, 64KB limit). However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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