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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses cost (0.002 USDC), which is useful, but says nothing about what happens on unsafe output (block vs. report a verdict), any permission/auth needs, or latency — all critical for a 'firewall' tool whose name implies enforcement.

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 packs purpose, timing, and price with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 output schema covers return values, but with no annotations and zero parameter documentation, the agent cannot construct a valid 'policy' or 'source' object. For a tool with nested-object inputs and a high-stakes enforcement role, the description leaves substantial gaps.

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 0% across 3 parameters, including nested 'policy' and 'source' objects, so the description must compensate and does not. It only loosely implies the meaning of the required 'output' parameter and gives no indication of what 'policy' or 'source' should contain.

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?

States a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('untrusted MCP/tool output'), giving the agent a clear sense of the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling guard tools like memory_write_guard or delegation_scope_guard, but the resource is specific enough to distinguish it.

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 phrase 'before it enters agent context or triggers an action' gives a clear timing condition for invocation. However, it names no alternatives and gives no when-not guidance, leaving the agent to infer when this is preferable to related siblings such as preflight or try_service.

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