signed_safety_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility and delivers extensively: it declares the tool read-only and stateless, explains authentication (none for basic, Pro/Enterprise requires MEOK API key), rate limits (10/day free, unlimited Pro), error handling, idempotency, and data privacy. This far exceeds typical descriptions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, tier, behavior, when to use/not, args, behavioral transparency). It is longer than necessary, but every sentence adds unique value. The front-loading of purpose is effective.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers all essential gaps: behavior, side effects, auth, rate limits, errors, idempotency, privacy. It even hints at the return format (cert and verify URL). The tool is complex with 5 parameters, and the description provides sufficient context for an agent to use it appropriately.

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%, yet parameter descriptions in the text only repeat the name and add generic phrasing like 'The subject to analyze or process.' No additional semantics or constraints are provided for any of the 5 parameters. The api_key parameter’s relation to tier is mentioned elsewhere but not in the parameter list.

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 opens with a clear action verb and object: 'Issue a cryptographically signed safety report for the scanned MCP server.' It further specifies the return (cert with public verify URL) and distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_tool_descriptions and scan_mcp_url by focusing on cryptographic signing.

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 description includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, listing appropriate contexts (security assessment, threat detection) and caveats (not solely for production decisions, combine with manual review). It also notes the tier restriction (Pro/Enterprise only).

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