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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context by warning that returned website content is untrusted source material and never instructions — a genuine prompt-injection guardrail that the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the action and followed by the security caveat; nothing is padded. The opening line is largely a restatement of the annotation title, which is the only minor redundancy.

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?

For a retrieval/polling tool with no output schema and a 0%-documented parameter, the description covers the safety angle well but omits the operational essentials: whether the scan may still be pending, whether polling is expected, and what 'results' contain. Adequate but with clear gaps for a result-fetching endpoint.

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% for the single scanId parameter, so the schema documents only its type/format (UUID). The description hints at provenance ('a scan you started through scanWebsite'), which helps the agent know where the ID comes from, but adds no format or validity details beyond that.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read status and results of a scan') and explicitly links to the sibling that creates it ('a scan you started through scanWebsite'). An agent can immediately tell this apart from scanWebsite (which initiates a scan) versus this tool (which fetches its outcome).

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?

It clearly frames the context of use — reading the status/results of a scan previously started via scanWebsite — which implicitly tells the agent this is the retrieval leg of a two-step flow. However, there are no exclusions or polling guidance (e.g., what to do when the scan is still running).

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