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

readOnlyHint already tells the agent this is a safe read; the description adds value by naming what comes back — progress, status, and the ai_part flag indicating the AI wording step finished. It still omits what status values exist and what happens if the scan is unknown, but for a read-only poller the disclosure is solid.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the next-step trigger. The parenthetical "(new wording)" is slightly noisy but earns its place by glossing the AI part.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema poller, the description covers the return contents and the follow-up action, which is most of what an agent needs. The missing piece is provenance of scan_id and the meaning of the partial/other status values.

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?

There is one required parameter, scan_id, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. "One of your scans" implies the parameter identifies a scan, but it never says where to obtain the id (e.g., list_scans) or its format.

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 resource (a single scan) and what it returns (status, progress, AI-part readiness), so the agent knows it is a per-scan status read rather than a listing. It does not explicitly contrast with list_scans, which is the closest sibling, so it stops short of 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 an explicit conditional hand-off: "When status is complete or partial, call get_actions." That is real workflow routing. It does not say when to prefer this over list_scans or what to do for other status values, so it is clear context without full when/when-not coverage.

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