cors_policy_preflight_misconfig_checker

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only audit and discloses the 0.025 USDC cost, but does not explain whether the tool fetches a URL, analyzes supplied headers, or what happens on failure or when payment is absent.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the core check is front-loaded and the cost is tucked in parentheses. Every element earns its place.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague payload definition, the description is too thin. An agent still cannot tell what input format to use or what result shape to expect, leaving a significant gap for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The schema's 'payload' description is generic, and the tool description does not clarify what payload should contain (e.g., URL vs. header JSON). The cost mention does hint that paymentSignature is relevant, but without saying when it is required.

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 action ('Audits') and a precise target: CORS response headers, with the exact dangerous condition spelled out (Access-Control-Allow-Origin: * + Credentials: true). This clearly separates it from the general verify_cors_headers sibling.

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 intended use is implied: use it when you need to audit a CORS configuration for wildcard-with-credentials misconfigurations. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or contrasts it with verify_cors_headers or other security checkers.

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