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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what gets cleared (seen handles / WA progress), which is useful, but says nothing about reversibility, permission requirements, or side effects on in-progress scans (e.g., continue_scan). For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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?

One compact sentence with the imperative verb front-loaded and no wasted words. Its brevity, however, edges toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

A destructive, zero-annotation, no-output-schema tool with an undocumented parameter requires more context than this provides. The description omits the safety profile, parameter semantics, and any relationship to the scan workflow it affects.

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% and the single required parameter (agent_id) is undocumented in the schema. The description only alludes to 'an agent' without specifying format, source, or whether it accepts names versus IDs, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Clear Leads Discovery scan cache') and clarifies what is being cleared ('seen handles / WA progress'), which helps distinguish it from siblings like delete_scans. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related delete_scans or explain the scope of 'cache' versus scan records.

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?

No guidance on when to clear the cache versus using delete_scans, delete_scan_schedule, or any other sibling. No prerequisites or conditions are stated, leaving the agent to infer when this destructive operation is appropriate.

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