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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so: it enumerates all six statuses, declares scores null until completion and null on failed-without-pages scans, and states that only 'done' has scores. It also gives an explicit anti-hallucination guardrail about not reporting scores for unfinished scans.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose first, then the polling rule, then the status enumeration. Slightly redundant in restating the null-score condition twice ("scores are null until the scan completes" and "only 'done' has scores"), but the repetition serves as a deliberate guardrail rather than padding.

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 no annotations, the description fully compensates by naming the returned fields, the status values, and the conditions under which scores are absent. An agent has everything needed to call it, poll it, and interpret the response correctly.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ("the scan id returned by scan_website"). The description reinforces provenance by tying the call to scan_website but adds no syntax, format, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the 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 and resource (get a scan's status), then extends it with the exact payload returned on completion: six dimension scores and issue counts by severity. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_category_result or get_issues, which retrieve narrower slices.

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 anchors usage to a predecessor ("Call this after scan_website") and gives a concrete polling protocol: wait pollAfterSeconds and call again while queued or running. It lacks explicit routing against siblings (e.g., when to use get_issues instead of reading counts here), which keeps it just below a 5.

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