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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: the operator-deploy restriction, the watchlist authorization requirement, and the unprovisioned degradation path. Return states are also disclosed.

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 dense sentences, zero filler: the action, the authorization constraints, and the return shape are each front-loaded in order of importance. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the return states (running | completed | failed) plus progress metadata. Combined with the deployment and authorization caveats, an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool, though polling cadence and error behavior are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 0% for the single scanId parameter, so the description carries the burden, and it only says the scan is identified 'by scanId' with no format, provenance, or length guidance. With one param and no enum, this is minimally adequate rather than rich.

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 ('Poll') and resource ('status of a cloud-bucket discovery scan') keyed by scanId, which cleanly separates it from scan_buckets_start (launch) and scan_buckets_findings (results). However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It gives real prerequisites ('Operator-deploy only', 'targets must be operator-authorized on the recon watchlist') and a fallback behavior ('degrades to info when unprovisioned'), which is better than nothing. But it never says when to poll vs. call scan_buckets_findings, or how often to poll, so the operational guidance is only implied.

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