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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, what happens with an invalid or expired id, whether reports are scoped to the caller, or the shape of the returned report, leaving significant gaps for a retrieval tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the qualifying clause placed where it reads naturally. Nothing is wasted.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential calling context (id provenance) but omits error behavior and a rough sense of the returned report's contents, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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%, and the schema itself explains that id is 'the slug in the report URL'. The description adds the provenance (from a prior scan result), which is helpful but is largely reinforcement of what the schema already conveys, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb (fetch) and resource (a stored scan report) and clarifies the id source, which links it to the scan_url/scan_html siblings. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with list_rules or spell out that it is the retrieval counterpart to the scan tools.

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 parenthetical '(from a prior scan_url/scan_html result)' implies the prerequisite context for using this tool, which is useful. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct naming of an alternative retrieval path.

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