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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them: it discloses the scale semantics of the risk score (0 best, 100 worst), the precondition that the scan must be completed, and a scope caveat ("technical findings, not legal advice").

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?

One front-loaded sentence plus a short caveat, with zero filler. The field list is dense but every item earns its place as return-content disclosure.

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 usefully enumerates the returned summary contents and the risk-score scale, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is what happens if the scan is not yet complete, which the agent must guess.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and a single scanId parameter already documented as coming from start_scan or list_scans, the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format, sourcing, or error-handling detail about scanId, 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 resource (scan summary) and enumerates exactly what it contains — risk score, verdict, banner/consent platform, cookie and tracker counts, top issues, report link. That content profile implicitly separates it from get_scan_findings (raw findings) and get_scan_status (progress), though no sibling is named outright.

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?

"A completed scan" is the only usage condition given; it implies the tool is for post-completion review but never says what to use while a scan is still running (get_scan_status) or where to go for full detail (get_scan_findings). Usage is inferable but not stated.

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