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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only scanning operation but never states what happens to the input, what the output looks like (matches, locations, redactions, confidence scores), which API key formats are covered, or whether it makes network calls. For a security-related detection tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 only two sentences, so it is brief and front-loaded with the purpose. However, the opening 'API Key Detect:' is redundant filler that simply restates the tool name and earns no place. The useful content is confined to the second sentence.

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 single-parameter tool this is minimally viable: an agent can infer that text should be passed and detection results returned. But with no output schema and no annotations, the description should compensate by describing return values, error behavior, or the scope of 'exposed' — none of which are covered. The contract is partially specified but the output side is entirely opaque.

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 100%, but the parameter description 'Input to process' is a generic placeholder. The tool description adds modest meaning by clarifying that the input is 'text' to be scanned for exposed API keys, which rules out file paths or URLs. This is a minor enhancement over the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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: 'Detect exposed API keys in text.' It clearly identifies the tool's function. However, the prefix 'API Key Detect:' merely restates the tool name, and the description does not differentiate it from closely related siblings like x402-secret-scan or x402-password-leak.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. There is no mention of what distinguishes it from x402-secret-scan (which likely also scans for exposed credentials), what text formats are appropriate, or when an agent should choose a different tool. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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