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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real behavioral context beyond them: the four terminal/transient states, the direction of riskScore (0 best, 100 worst), and a scope disclaimer that output is technical findings rather than legal advice. It does not cover polling expectations, freshness, or errors for an unknown/expired scanId.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its state machine, then the return value semantics. Nothing repeats the title and nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing what comes back (status values plus riskScore), which is the essential payload. It stops short of describing other likely fields or error behavior, but for a single-parameter read tool it is largely sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains that scanId is 'returned by start_scan or list_scans'. The description adds no format, encoding, or validity detail beyond that, so the 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 ('Status of a scan') and goes further by enumerating the four possible lifecycle states and defining the riskScore scale. It implicitly separates itself from get_scan_summary/get_scan_findings, but never names those siblings, so an agent deciding between 'status' and 'summary' must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no 'call after start_scan until status is completed' polling guidance, and no exclusions against get_scan_summary or list_scans. Usage is only implied by the enumerated states and by the schema note that scanId comes from start_scan/list_scans.

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