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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, and the description adds that it is a follow-up to an async quick_check job. However, it says nothing about polling behavior, whether the result can still be pending/incomplete, or error behavior for an unknown/expired job_id — meaningful gaps for a job-result tool.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the resource and the provenance of the required parameter front-loaded. No waste, though it could have used one more clause productively for polling/pending behavior.

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?

With no output schema and a read-only annotation, the description should convey what comes back (findings, report link, partial status) to let an agent chain correctly. It identifies the input lineage but leaves the return contract and pending-state handling unstated.

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%, and the description's note that job_id comes from quick_check duplicates the schema wording rather than extending it. The optional `language` parameter is not addressed in the description at all, so the schema does all the work — baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Gets) and resource (the result of a quick_check), and scopes it to jobs that were still running. It also ties the input to the sibling that produced it, so an agent can distinguish it from get_scan_status/get_findings without opening a schema.

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 phrase 'that was still running' supplies a clear trigger condition: call this after quick_check returned a job_id instead of an immediate result. It does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g. re-calling quick_check) or state what to do if the job is still pending, which keeps it from a 5.

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