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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds critical behavioral context beyond this: findings are always redacted to the first/last few characters, output is safe to log, the scan is not exhaustive, and empty/oversized inputs produce errors. This meaningfully exceeds what annotations convey.

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 definition is well-structured with clear sections (description, args, returns, examples, error handling), front-loads the core purpose and usage guidance, and every section carries useful information. Length is justified by the tool's security-critical nature and the need to explain redaction and limitations.

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 fully specifies the return payload structure including found, riskLevel, and findings fields. It also covers error handling, length constraints, and usage examples. For a single-parameter tool with strong annotations, this is complete and leaves no critical gaps.

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 input schema already describes text as 'a git diff, a file's contents, or any pasted snippet' with length constraints. The description repeats these details, adding little new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Scan text ... for accidentally-committed secrets') and enumerates the exact detector categories (cloud keys, platform tokens, payment keys, private key blocks, JWTs, entropy-gated checks). This is precise and unambiguous even without sibling tools to differentiate from.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios ('before committing, opening a PR, or pasting logs/config anywhere') and an explicit don't-use case ('you need certainty nothing sensitive is present'). It also honestly frames the tool's limits as a fixed-pattern + heuristic scan, giving clear decision guidance.

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