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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds behavior beyond them: it never starts a scan, it returns the same payload as scan_website, and scanIds expire 7 days after issuance. The expiry/retry semantics are exactly the kind of operational context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then prerequisites, then return states, then the two key constraints. Four sentences with no filler; each one changes how the agent behaves.

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?

Complete for a continuation tool: an output schema exists so return values need no elaboration, annotations carry the safety profile, and the description closes the remaining gaps (ordering, timing, expiry, idempotent re-polling).

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: scanId comes from scan_website's "processing" response and stops working after 7 days, and it clarifies that retries are expected rather than error conditions. The ~30 second guidance sits slightly at odds with waitSeconds' 20-second cap, but does not obscure the parameter's purpose.

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+resource ("collect the result of a scan") and immediately scopes it against the sibling: it is the continuation of scan_website, not a scan starter. An agent can distinguish it from scan_website without opening either 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?

Explicitly sequences the workflow: call scan_website first, and only call this when its status is "processing". It also prescribes the retry cadence (~30 seconds) and interprets each returned state ("processing", "ready", "failed") into a next action.

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