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

The annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds some useful context by noting the status is owner-scoped and for an asynchronous batch scan, but it does not explain polling behavior, return states, or access requirements beyond the annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler wording. Every phrase contributes to identifying the resource and scope.

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 simple read-only status tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description gives enough context to call it correctly. It is slightly incomplete in not distinguishing its use from sibling tools like batch_scan_findings or batch_scan_start, but annotations and schema carry the rest.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, both job_id and format are already documented in the schema. The description adds the ownership scoping context but does not explain the format parameter or add syntax beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description states a specific verb (Read) and resource (owner-scoped status of an asynchronous batch scan), so it is clear what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely named siblings such as batch_scan, batch_scan_findings, or batch_scan_start.

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 identifies the purpose but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_scan_start or batch_scan_findings. It does not mention polling, prerequisites, or when-not-to-use conditions.

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