x402node_supply_ioc-scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It clearly marks the tool as BETA, includes a verification date, and warns against production use. It explains the scan action, matching against campaigns, and the output as a risk score. Missing details on error behavior or rate limits are acceptable for a simple tool.

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 short paragraphs efficiently convey all key information: beta warning, action, accepted files, output, and pricing. Every sentence is meaningful and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return (risk score 0-100) and the types of input files. It covers key context like beta status and pricing. However, it could elaborate on what 'active campaigns' refers to or the scoring methodology.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description adds value by specifying the expected input (file uploads of specific types). This compensates for the lack of parameters and clarifies usage beyond the schema.

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 it performs a 'Lockfile supply chain scan' on specific file types and returns a risk score. It differentiates from siblings like x402node_supply_ioc-list through the name and scanning action, though explicit contrast is lacking.

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 lists accepted file formats (package-lock.json, etc.) and warns not to rely on matches for production. However, it does not provide when to use this tool versus siblings like x402node_supply_ioc-list or x402node_supply_campaign, nor does it state prerequisites or error handling.

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