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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output range (0-100) and severity breakdown but fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, any input expectations, error behavior, or rate limits. The agent has little insight into side effects or return format.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core function and output range. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is too sparse for a tool with no output schema or annotations. It lacks parameter guidance, usage context relative to siblings, and output structure details (beyond 'severity breakdown'), making it incomplete for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the 'code' or 'language' parameters. It doesn't clarify that 'code' likely refers to source code or that 'language' is the programming language, leaving the agent to guess the parameter meanings entirely.

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 calculates a numeric risk score from 0-100 with a severity breakdown, using a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like detect_antipatterns or security_check, though the purpose is evident.

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 the tool is used when a risk score is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or any exclusions. There's no mention of use cases like code review vs. vulnerability scanning, leaving the context ambiguous.

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