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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that leads come back paginated and what the payload contains (status, progress, leads), which is genuinely useful behavior beyond the schema. However it omits permission requirements, error behavior for a bad scan_id/agent_id, and any indication of whether the call is side-effect free.

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; the parenthetical efficiently packs in the return contents. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description should do more heavy lifting. It covers the return payload shape but leaves all four parameters undocumented and does not describe pagination defaults or how to page through leads.

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% for all four parameters, and the description only hints at pagination, without explaining limit, offset, scan_id, or agent_id. The relationship between agent_id and scan_id (both required) and the pagination syntax are left entirely to inference.

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+resource ('Get one scan') and enumerates the payload it returns (status, progress, leads), which implicitly distinguishes it from the singular/plural siblings. It does not explicitly name list_scans or list_scan_results, so differentiation relies on the reader inferring 'one' vs 'list'.

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 when-to-use guidance is given. With siblings list_scans and list_scan_results available, the agent gets no explicit rule for choosing this single-scan fetch over the list endpoints, and no prerequisites (auth, ownership) are stated.

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