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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description correctly spends its words on non-obvious behavior: the tool only works in operator deployments, targets must be on the recon watchlist, and it degrades to "info" when unprovisioned. It also discloses the status enum, useful since there is no output schema. Polling cadence, timeout, and what "progress metadata" contains are left unstated.

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 with the core action front-loaded, then prerequisites, then return shape. Dense jargon like "degrades to info when unprovisioned" costs a bit of readability but each clause carries real information.

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 single-parameter status poller with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials an agent needs: the ID's origin, the deployment/authorization preconditions, and the possible status values. It stops short of telling the agent how often or how long to poll and what the progress metadata includes.

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 100% and the schema itself already says scanId is "Scan ID returned by scan_buckets_start." The description repeats the parameter name and its source without adding format, length, or lifecycle detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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: poll the status of a cloud-bucket discovery scan by scanId. It also names the return values (running | completed | failed), which makes it unambiguously distinct from scan_buckets_start (which creates the scan) and scan_buckets_findings (which returns results).

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?

"Poll the status ... by scanId" plus the schema note that scanId comes from scan_buckets_start makes the predecessor relationship explicit. Gating conditions (operator-deploy, operator-authorized targets) are also stated. It does not explicitly route the agent to scan_buckets_findings once the scan completes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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