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 static analysis/scan operation but never states whether it executes the SQL, what 'dangerous operation' covers (e.g., DROP, DELETE, TRUNCATE), or what the output looks like. For a security tool this leaves critical behavioral unknowns.

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 one compact line and easily scannable, but it wastes its opening on a verbatim repeat of the tool name. It is arguably under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, leaving the remaining dimensions starved of the detail they need.

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 security-detection tool with no annotations, no output schema, and ambiguous dual parameters, the description is inadequate. The agent is left without knowledge of the return format, the detection criteria, parameter selection, or how this differs from x402-sql-validate — all required to invoke it reliably.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions 'Sql to process' and 'Query to process' are tautological restatements of the parameter names. The description does not clarify the real ambiguity: both sql and query appear to accept SQL text, yet the tool has two parameters and none required. The agent cannot determine which to supply 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 core phrase 'SQL injection + dangerous operation detection' names a specific action (detection) and resource (SQL), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like x402-sql-format, x402-sql-validate, and x402-sql-explain. However, the leading 'x402-sql-check:' prefix merely repeats the tool name, which is redundant.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many SQL-related siblings (x402-sql-validate, x402-sql-explain, x402-sql-format). There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or mention of whether this should run before executing untrusted SQL. The agent must infer the use case 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.