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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read operation but discloses nothing about pagination, authentication, whether leads are truncated, or what is returned for an active vs completed scan.

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 short sentence, front-loaded with the alias relationship and the resource. It wastes no words, though the extreme brevity is under-specification rather than elegance.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema descriptions, this eight-word description is far too thin. It omits return shape, pagination behavior, and any distinction from get_scan, leaving the agent to infer nearly everything.

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% across four parameters, including two required ones (agent_id, scan_id) plus limit/offset. The description mentions no parameter at all, so an agent gets zero guidance on identifier formats or pagination semantics.

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 ("read leads from an active or completed scan") and explicitly names the sibling it duplicates (get_scan), so an agent can immediately tell what it mirrors. It does not explain what distinguishes it from get_scan beyond being an alias, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 description never says when to prefer this tool over get_scan, which is the only decision that matters for an alias. The phrase "active or completed scan" hints at scope but offers no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or selection criteria.

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