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

Annotations already declare the operation is not read-only, is open-world, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds key behavioral context beyond annotations: the scan is asynchronous and requires polling with getScanResult, and it falls back to a saved website URL when none is supplied.

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?

Very concise and front-loads the core action and follow-up polling instruction. The first line 'Scan a website' is a redundant restatement of the tool name/title, but the rest is efficient.

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?

No output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, but the description omits critical parameter details for a tool with three parameters at 0% schema coverage. The agent still does not know what the jobType options mean or when to supply contentGroupId.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only partially explains websiteUrl's fallback behavior. It says nothing about the jobType enum values (brand_scan, competitive_analysis, full_scan) or the optional contentGroupId.

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 ('Scan a website') and expands the goal to 'Start brand or competitor research using the website-scanner service,' clearly distinguishing it from the sibling getScanResult which is only for polling results.

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?

Explicitly says to use this tool to start research and to poll with getScanResult afterward, and notes the saved URL fallback. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives for other research contexts.

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