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

The description adds significant behavioral detail beyond annotations: it returns immediately with an empty envelope, the scan runs asynchronously taking 1–2 minutes, and iubenda emails the site owner when finished. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and timing that annotations alone do not convey.

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 concise and front-loaded: purpose, immediate return behavior, timing, email notification, and follow-up workflow. Every sentence earns its place, including the user-facing instruction about waiting or checking back, which is essential for correct agent behavior.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the async nature, the empty envelope, the follow-up retrieval path, and how to manage user expectations. There are no critical gaps that would prevent an agent from invoking or handling the 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?

The input schema already documents site_id with 100% coverage, including that it accepts a numeric id or public id. The description mentions site_id in the get_scan follow-up but does not add new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Schedule a Radar compliance scan for an iubenda site.' It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling get_scan by explaining that start_scan initiates the scan while get_scan retrieves results, and it sets expectations for asynchronous execution.

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 provides explicit guidance on what to do after calling the tool: ask the user whether they want to wait for the email or check back, then use get_scan(site_id). It names get_scan as the follow-up alternative, though it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or list alternative scan-related tools.

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