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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it blocks up to 60 seconds if the scan is still running, and results expire after 30 days. It does not describe the returned payload, which is a remaining gap.

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?

Purpose and key behaviors are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact Args block. The sector/lang enumerations partially repeat the schema, but overall there is little waste.

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 result-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description never characterizes what the returned scan result actually contains, leaving the agent to guess the payload shape. Retention and blocking behavior are covered, but the output gap keeps this at minimum-viable.

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%, so the description carries the burden and mostly delivers: it identifies the origin of scan_id, enumerates sector values and notes it is guessed when omitted, and lists lang values. The 'guessed when omitted' behavior for sector is meaning not present in the schema.

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 ('Get the result of a scan') and ties it explicitly to its producer sibling, 'scan_website', so an agent can distinguish it from the other check_* and find_* tools without opening a 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?

Clearly establishes the prerequisite (the scan_id returned by scan_website) and the blocking behavior, which tells the agent when this tool is the right one. It stops short of naming any alternative or a when-not-to-use condition.

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