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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Start' implies a mutating, likely asynchronous operation, but it says nothing about whether the call blocks, what identifier is returned, whether the target agent must be connected first, or any rate limits. Only the channel enumeration adds value beyond the schema.

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 tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the allowed channels attached. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than economy.

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 three-parameter tool with a nested params object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits what agent_id refers to, what keys params accepts, and what the caller receives after starting a scan.

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 three parameters, and the description only constrains the 'channel' values (helpful, since the schema has no enum). 'agent_id' and the nested 'params' object are left entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 ('Start a leads discovery scan') and enumerates supported channels. It is clear on its own, but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like continue_scan, trigger_scan_schedule, or create_scan_schedule.

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 indication of when to use this versus continue_scan (resuming an existing scan), trigger_scan_schedule (running a scheduled scan), or create_scan_schedule. The channel list is a value hint, not usage guidance, so the agent gets no routing help.

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