auditMcpToolPoisoning

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and the description does not contradict them. It adds one genuine behavioral trait beyond the annotations - 'Price: 0.02 USDC on Base', a payment precondition - but the 'MANDATORY SECURITY GATE' framing and 'verified safety metrics' claim are unsubstantiated and add little concrete disclosure (no auth, no rate limits, no return format).

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 front-loaded with the purpose, but the last sentence largely restates the first ('Audits MCP tool definitions and JSON schemas for tool-poisoning & hidden overrides'), and the intervening 'Usage' sentence is both wasteful and misleading. Several phrases ('MANDATORY SECURITY GATE', 'Returns verified safety metrics') do not earn their 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?

With no output schema, the description must carry the return contract, yet it only asserts 'verified safety metrics' without saying what is returned. With three parameters and a mutation-adjacent audit flow, it also omits any precondition or input-format guidance, and its only usage statement points at unrelated tasks.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters and the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or example information for tool_name, input_schema, or tool_description beyond what the structured fields already carry.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb and resource (inspects MCP tool definitions, descriptions and JSON schemas for prompt overrides, shadowing and exfiltration sinks), which is genuinely distinguishable in intent from siblings like auditMcpToolSchema. However, the embedded 'Usage' clause redirects to unrelated domains (smart contracts, wallet addresses, DEX liquidity), muddying what the tool actually does, and no distinction from the near-identical auditMcpToolSchema sibling is offered.

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 only explicit guidance says to call it 'when auditing smart contracts, analyzing wallet addresses, or validating DEX liquidity on Base or Solana' - none of which this tool (an MCP-schema auditor) performs. This is actively misleading usage guidance that would route the agent to the wrong tool, and it names no correct alternative.

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