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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds real value beyond them: no scan starts, no refresh, no publication-state change, no quota consumption, so polling is safe. It also discloses the pending-state response shape (status + retry_after_seconds) and pagination contract, which no annotation covers.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then safety/quota, then pending and pagination behavior. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is filler.

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 compensates by naming the key return elements (status, retry_after_seconds, next_cursor, findings). Combined with the annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call and consume this tool correctly.

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%, so limit and cursor are already fully documented; the description reinforces scan_handle provenance and the cursor-to-next_cursor loop but adds no syntax or constraint beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Read the result of an Evolize assessment') and ties it directly to the sibling that produces the input ('started with scan_website, using the scan_handle it returned'). An agent can distinguish this from scan_website and get_public_report 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?

Gives clear context: use it after scan_website, poll it safely, and follow next_cursor to page through findings. It handles the pending case with retry_after_seconds. It never explicitly contrasts with the get_public_report sibling, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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