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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description reveals meaningful behavior: it is safe for repeated calls, that 'terminal' is a final state, that 'report_available' gates get_report, and that unknown and unreadable scans are intentionally indistinguishable. This is substantial added context.

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: the main purpose, the polling suitability, the key status meanings, and the privacy/error behavior. It is compact, front-loaded, and free of redundancy.

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?

Given the output schema exists and the description already covers usage timing, status semantics, cost behavior, and edge-case handling, an agent has enough context to invoke and interpret this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents scan_id as an integer numeric id. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, but it does not need to; 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 states a specific verb ('poll'), a specific resource ('one scan'), and the exact context ('after submit_scan'). It also distinguishes itself from get_report by defining when that sibling becomes relevant.

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?

It explicitly says to use this after submit_scan and notes it is cheap enough for a polling loop. It points to get_report when 'report_available' occurs, though it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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