Check target scope

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the 'normalize' behavior, which is useful, but does not disclose edge cases such as invalid targets or missing engagement IDs. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action ('Normalize a target') and states the outcome ('report whether it is inside the engagement scope'). No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is sufficient for basic understanding. It does not describe normalization specifics or error handling, but these are not essential for a simple scope-check operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It does so by explaining that 'target' is normalized and checked against 'engagement scope', implicitly assigning roles to both parameters. This adds value beyond the raw schema fields.

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 normalizes a target and checks if it is inside an engagement scope. The verb 'normalize' and the specific resource ('engagement scope') make the purpose unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_headers or scan_repository.

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 usage for verifying whether a target falls within a defined scope, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Context suggests it is a precondition check, but no explicit guidance is provided.

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