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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the report is large and contains every measured check, pages, and limits. It could say more about response size or pagination, but the key performance warning is present.

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 a tight two-sentence statement with no filler. The purpose and contents come first, followed immediately by the size warning and alternative.

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, the description does enough to list the report's major sections and warn about size. However, it leaves the scan_id semantics and the exact return shape under-specified for a tool that returns a large composite report.

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 required scan_id parameter. The phrase 'one of your scans' implies that scan_id selects the scan, but the description does not explain the identifier format, where to obtain it, or any constraints.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a full report for one scan and enumerates its contents: teardown, actions, checks, pages, and limits. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_actions by directing agents there when appropriate, though it does not differentiate from get_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?

It gives explicit guidance to prefer get_actions because this report is large, which is a clear when-to-use alternative. It does not explain when to use get_report over get_scan or list_scans, but the main action-oriented alternative is covered.

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