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 says a paused scan is continued but does not state whether this resumes, restarts, or mutates the scan, whether it needs specific permissions, whether the pause state is consumed, or what happens on failure. For a mutation tool 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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the surrounding documentation gaps rather than being a purely positive trait.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. It omits required-parameter meaning, the effect of continuing, and success/failure behavior.

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% with 4 parameters. The description only vaguely gestures at 'selected_resources' (groups/targets) and says nothing about agent_id, scan_id, or the optional max_contacts_per_group, so it fails to compensate for the completely undocumented schema.

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 states a specific verb (continue) and resource (a scan paused for selection), plus names the kinds of resources involved. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like run_scan or trigger_scan_schedule, and 'paused for selection' is domain jargon an agent may not fully parse.

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 'paused for selection' implies the tool is only used after a scan has reached a selection state, which gives some conditional guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no mention of alternatives such as run_scan.

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