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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not say whether this returns the matched keys, their positions, counts, or masked values, nor which key formats/patterns are recognized, nor that it is a purely local read with no external calls. 'Detect' implies read-only, but nothing is confirmed.

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 with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing behavioral and parameter detail noted elsewhere.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and duplicated ambiguous inputs, a one-line description is not enough for an agent to call this reliably. It should at least explain the text vs input distinction and what a result contains.

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 coverage is nominally 100%, but both parameters are described tautologically ('Text to process' / 'Input to process'), leaving two apparently interchangeable fields the agent cannot choose between. The description adds no disambiguation, so the structured data is effectively uninformative here.

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+resource with scope ('detect exposed API keys in text'), so the agent knows it is a detection/scanning utility. It does not differentiate from near siblings such as x402-secret-scan or x402-redact, which occupy the same problem space.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. With x402-secret-scan, x402-secret-scan-style tools and x402-redact in the sibling list, the agent gets no help choosing between detection and redaction or between key scanning and broader secret scanning.

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