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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the output never contains sample bytes, decompiled source, download links, or artifact references; lists report counts and truncation; and missing versus unauthorized scans return identical 'not found' responses. This is rich, useful behavioral disclosure.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: contents, exclusions, list semantics, and not-found behavior are each covered once with no redundancy. The most identifying information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 one documented parameter and no output schema, the description compensates well by specifying what the result contains, what it excludes, how lists behave, and how missing or unauthorized scans are handled. An agent has enough context to call the tool and interpret the result 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 schema already fully documents the only parameter, scan_id, as an integer 'numeric id,' so the description does not need to add parameter details. It lightly ties scan_id to 'one scan,' but the schema carries the explanatory weight here, which warrants the baseline 3.

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 clearly identifies the resource as 'the derived analysis report for one scan' and enumerates its contents, so an agent understands what the tool returns. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the 'one scan' scope and derived-data emphasis make its purpose clear enough.

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 implies when the tool is relevant: you have a scan and want its derived report, and it emphasizes that it exposes derived data only. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer get_report over poll_scan or lookup_hash, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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