detect_injection

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses pricing, payment mechanism (x402), that Verity holds no key and never charges silently, and that affiliate_id never changes behavior. It also lists the return fields, offering comprehensive behavioral transparency.

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 longer than necessary but well-structured, front-loading purpose and usage, then adding pricing, return format, and OWASP mapping. Each sentence adds value, though some details (e.g., OWASP mapping) could be trimmed for a more concise read.

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 and no annotations, the description covers most essential aspects: purpose, usage timing, return fields, and pricing. However, it omits an explanation of the 'context' parameter, which is a gap. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly, but not perfect.

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 schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description explicitly explains affiliate_id ('tags the call for a future referral program; it never changes price or behavior') but does not explain 'content' or 'context'. 'Content' is implied as the text to screen, but 'context' is left unspecified. This partial compensation warrants a mid-range score.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Screen untrusted text or tool output for PROMPT-INJECTION / manipulation.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the specific threat category and attack types (instruction-override, jailbreaks, multilingual attacks).

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?

Provides clear context: 'Use on anything an agent ingests from an outside source (web page, email, doc, tool result) BEFORE acting on it.' This implies when to use, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. The guidance is sufficient for typical use.

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