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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses scope ('completed scan runs', not schedules), but says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, or what happens to associated results. Partial behavioral context only.

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 the scope boundary in parentheses. No wasted words, and the key constraint is immediately visible.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description does far too little. It should at minimum cover irreversibility and parameter semantics, which are entirely absent.

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 both required parameters (agent_id, scan_ids) are completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no meaning about what a scan_id is, the batch semantics of the array, or the agent_id's role.

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 (delete) and resource (completed scan runs), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling delete_scan_schedule by noting it does not delete schedules. An agent can distinguish this from the schedule-deletion tool without opening either schema.

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 parenthetical gives a clear exclusion (does not delete schedules), which routes the agent toward the schedule-deletion sibling, and the word 'completed' implies it only targets finished runs. However, it does not name the alternative tool explicitly or state prerequisites.

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