One agent-readiness scan in full: the summary plus every check with its status, points, finding, recommendation and evidence (URLs fetched, statuses, short snippets of the client's own pages). scan_id comes from get_agent_readiness. Requires the aeo section in scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_id | Yes | scan_id from get_agent_readiness |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context: it enumerates the returned content (summary, every check, status, points, finding, recommendation, and evidence including URLs and snippets) and discloses the AEO scope requirement. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.
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 sentences carry all necessary information: the first front-loads the tool's primary purpose and output contents, and the second covers scan_id provenance and the AEO scope prerequisite. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
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 must explain return values, and it does so thoroughly by listing the full scan summary, per-check details, and evidence types. It also provides the required input source and a scope precondition, making the tool fully actionable for a one-parameter read-only operation.
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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already documents scan_id and its source, and the description only repeats that provenance without adding new parameter semantics. There is no gap for the description to compensate for.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('get') and resource ('one agent-readiness scan'), and it disambiguates from the sibling list tool by specifying 'one ... in full' and noting that scan_id comes from get_agent_readiness. This clearly tells an agent what this tool returns and how it differs from the related summary/list tool.
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?
It gives clear usage context: use this after obtaining scan_id from get_agent_readiness, and it flags a precondition ('Requires the aeo section in scope'). It does not explicitly list when not to use it, but the scan_id provenance note is strong enough guidance for selecting this tool over alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.