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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full load. It does disclose the payment model (5 free trial calls per signed wallet), which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about detection coverage (which key providers/patterns), what is returned, or whether results include positions or masking.

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 text is short and front-loaded, but the opening 'API Key Detect:' merely restates the tool name before the actual sentence, and the emoji pricing banner is decorative rather than structural.

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 a duplicated/unclear two-parameter schema, the description should clarify parameter usage and expected output shape. It instead covers only purpose and pricing, leaving the calling contract underspecified.

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 0% and the two parameters, text and input, are both bare strings with no required flag. The description's phrase 'in text' hints at the text parameter but leaves input completely unexplained, so an agent cannot tell which to populate or whether both are needed.

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. That is concrete enough to distinguish it from list/convert siblings, but it never mentions the closest alternative, x402-secret-scan, so differentiation is left implicit.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus x402-secret-scan, x402-password-leak, or x402-redact, and no mention of input format or what 'exposed' means in scope. The only usage-adjacent text is the pricing line about 5 free trial calls.

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