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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint=false/destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'calls no provider and changes nothing.' It adds genuine context beyond the annotations — null scan on never-scanned connections, the meaning of not_measured, and credit-wasting run ordering — without describing errors or pagination.

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 content is front-loaded and largely earns its place, but it is delivered as one enormous run-on sentence with a stacked enumeration that is hard to parse. Splitting the return-shape list from the read-only caveat would improve structure without losing information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing the return value, and it does so thoroughly: statuses, finding fields, remedies with cost, run sequence, previous_id, and the null case. With both parameters documented, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description repeats the scan_id/previous_id relationship and omits nothing, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('the connection's latest AI readiness scan') and enumerates the artifact's contents precisely, so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling get_readiness_recommendations, which is the only missing piece for a 5.

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?

Gives clear context: omit scan_id for the latest, pass a previous_id to compare, and 'starting a scan is a person's act' tells the agent not to hunt for a start-scan tool. No explicit alternative routing against sibling read tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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