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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false; the description adds domain-relevant behavior by clarifying the tool performs no scanning and reads from stored state. It does not cover failure behavior (e.g. no scan yet, unknown check id), which would be the remaining useful disclosure.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and the non-scanning constraint front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the return format (markdown) and the granularity options, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The only omission is behavior when the host has no stored record or the check id is unknown.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'or one check of it by check id' does confirm that omitting 'check' yields the full report, but that is already stated in the schema's own parameter description, so the marginal value is small.

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 (returns the markdown status report) plus the scope (a host's stored scan record, or a single check). The closing clause 'It starts no scan' explicitly separates it from the scan_site sibling, so an agent can route correctly 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?

Clear context is given: this reads an already-stored record rather than triggering collection, which implicitly tells the agent to call it after a scan exists. It does not name get_score or list_checks as alternatives or state what to do when no record exists, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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