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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the call may reuse a recent scan, returns only preliminary data without final findings or score, never waits for completion, and provides automated observations rather than legal advice. It also flags deprecated fields as accepted-but-ignored, giving an agent a clear model of side effects and async behavior.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then covers scope, response contents, limitations, and documentation in a compact, structured way. Every sentence earns its place, and no redundant material is present.

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 complete for invocation: it explains what the tool does, what coverage it scans, what the response will contain, the bounded-preview limitation, and the non-authoritative nature of results. Combined with a rich output schema and full parameter documentation, nothing essential is missing.

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%, with each parameter already carrying detailed meaning, including deprecation notes for maxWaitSeconds and waitForCompletion. The description adds contextual polish around reuse vs. refresh, but it does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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: it 'creates a public-website privacy scan or reuses an eligible recent completed scan' and enumerates the covered privacy areas. This clearly differentiates it from the sibling get_scan_status and get_scan_bundle tools, which retrieve existing scan data rather than initiate or reuse a scan.

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?

Usage is implied through the freshness policy and lifecycle-status language, but the description never explicitly tells an agent when to prefer this tool over get_scan_status or get_scan_bundle, nor states any 'when-not-to-use' conditions. An agent can infer it is for creating/reusing scans, but the guidance is not explicit.

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