Login Surface Report

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about possible x402 utility pricing and separation from the free witness protocol, which helps the agent understand potential costs and scope.

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 two sentences long: the first clearly states the tool's function, and the second adds relevant pricing context. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

The description tells what the tool inspects but does not describe the output format or return structure. Since there is no output schema, the agent lacks information about what the result will look like, which is a gap for a simple tool.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (e.g., 'Login or app URL' and timeout range). The description provides no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already offers.

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 uses the specific verb 'inspect' and clearly names the resource 'auth surface signals' with concrete examples like login forms, signup links, and security headers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like util_api_health_report or util_dns_lookup.

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 implies the tool is for analyzing login pages by mentioning auth surface signals, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., util_http_headers_inspect for headers only). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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