How to scan my app

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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the scan is free, ownership-verified, and importantly that this tool performs no API call or scan action itself and only returns a link.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome, followed by the crucial non-action clarification. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 helpfully states the return is a link to start the scan, and it clearly bounds the behavior for a single-parameter tool. Adequate for the tool's low complexity, though it could name the relevant sibling tools for routing.

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% and the single 'url' parameter is well documented with an example in the schema. The description adds no format or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: explains how to run a free, ownership-verified, read-only security scan and returns a start link. It implicitly distinguishes itself from action tools by declaring it does not start a scan, though it does not name any of the sibling tools directly.

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 a clear when-not signal: 'Does NOT call any API or start a scan,' telling the agent this is purely informational. It lacks explicit routing to named alternatives among the siblings (e.g. supabase_rls_audit_sql, check_key_exposure), but the context is otherwise clear.

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