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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: scans may be reused or newly created, preliminary previews contain no final findings, results are automated observations rather than legal advice, and the deprecated compatibility fields are accepted but ignored. There is no contradiction with the readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false profile.

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 dense but efficient: the main action is front-loaded, and each later sentence conveys useful caveats or behavioral clarity. It is slightly long, but no sentence is 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?

Given the tool has a rich input schema and an output schema, the description provides enough context: lifecycle status, scanId, retry timing, preliminary-preview limitations, disclaimers, and a documentation link. It gives an agent what it needs to call the tool and understand what to expect.

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 schema already documents url, scanFrom values, freshness policy, and the deprecated fields. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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 ('Creates a public-website privacy scan or reuses an eligible recent completed scan') and names the exact coverage areas. This is clearly distinct from the sibling get_scan_bundle and get_scan_status retrieval tools, so an agent can tell the action apart.

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 gives a clear context for when to call this tool: to start a scan or reuse an eligible completed one, and it explains what the response will contain. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the contrast with the retrieval-focused sibling names is reasonably clear.

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