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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context: async execution, immediate scanId return, authorization requirement, and info-level degradation when unprovisioned. It does not describe rerun/duplicate-submission semantics, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by constraints and the polling/fetch routing. No filler, though the semicolon clause is dense enough to be slightly harder to scan.

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?

The lifecycle is well covered (start, poll, fetch) and the scanId return is stated despite no output schema, but the undocumented 'providers' parameter and the absence of any return-shape detail leave a gap for a tool with 0% schema coverage.

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% with 2 parameters and no enum hints, so the schema does nothing. The description only implies the 'target' parameter via 'target domain' and never mentions the 'providers' parameter at all, leaving it undocumented in both places.

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+scope ('Start an async cloud-bucket discovery scan for a target domain'), and the async-start framing distinguishes it cleanly from the scan_buckets_status and scan_buckets_findings siblings it names.

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?

States preconditions explicitly (operator-deploy only, targets must be operator-authorized on the recon watchlist), the fallback behavior when unprovisioned, and routes the agent to status/findings for the follow-up steps.

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