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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: active responses include phase, heartbeat, progress, retryAfterSeconds, and a bounded preliminary preview, while terminal responses include score and risk metadata. It also warns that preliminary observations are distinct from completed findings, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 compact and well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then enumerates active and terminal response contents, and closes with an important caveat. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety characteristics, the description provides enough behavioral detail for an agent to understand what this status endpoint returns, including lifecycle states and the distinction between preliminary and final results. No critical guidance is missing for calling the tool correctly.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single scanId parameter, including the note that it is returned by certscore_scan_site. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns lifecycle status for a stable CertScore scanId and distinguishes active versus terminal responses. It identifies the resource and operation precisely, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as certscore_get_scan_bundle.

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 mention of retryAfterSeconds and stable scanId implies a polling use case after certscore_scan_site, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not state when to prefer this tool over certscore_get_scan_bundle.

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