Audit CORS behavior

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that probes are 'bounded', hinting at limited request volume, but says nothing about authentication needs, rate limits, or what makes a response count as 'permissive'.

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?

A single sentence with the action and outcome front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves little room for otherwise-needed usage and parameter detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no usage guidance, this definition omits information an agent needs to invoke a two-parameter security scanner correctly.

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% for two parameters (url, origins), so the description carries the full explanatory burden — and it does not. 'Cross-origin probes' loosely gestures at the origins parameter but the description never explains the url target, the max-5 origins list, or their formats.

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 pairs a specific verb ('send... probes', 'identify') with a specific resource ('permissive CORS responses'), so the tool's job is unambiguous. It is naturally distinct from siblings like csp_analysis or headers_analysis, though it never explicitly names or contrasts them.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. An agent cannot tell from the text whether this is a first-pass recon step or a deep-dive that presupposes prior discovery, nor how it relates to sibling security analyzers.

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