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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so this is known to be a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations by specifying the polling semantics, the authoritative status field, the ready alias, and the exact categories of returned data.

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?

The description is three sentences with no wasted language: it front-loads the purpose, then gives the polling guidance, then lists the returned data. Every sentence contributes directly to correct invocation and interpretation of the result.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states when to call it, how to interpret completion, and what fields the response contains. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking this tool correctly is missing.

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?

The input schema already documents site_id as 'iubenda Site id (numeric id or public id)' with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. The description's reference to 'an iubenda site' aligns with the schema but adds no new semantic meaning.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, 'Retrieve the current Radar compliance scan for an iubenda site,' making the tool's purpose explicit. It also differentiates from start_scan by framing this as the polling counterpart that returns the scan result, and it enumerates the key categories of returned data.

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?

The description gives clear usage context: 'Poll this after start_scan until `status` is `completed`' and identifies `status` as the authoritative signal. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the polling workflow and termination condition are clearly stated.

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