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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that this is a queued/asynchronous operation, that it spends the account's own credits, and that it is subject to plan limits. These are material behavioral facts not captured by readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, then states key constraints and the workflow. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, limitation, cost, and next steps.

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 tool with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers the important operational context: what can be submitted, what cannot, credit implications, and how to retrieve the result. An agent has enough to decide when and how to call it.

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 module, target, and private thoroughly. The description's enumeration of target types adds readability but does not add substantial semantic information beyond the schema.

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 states the verb and resource: 'Queue a new analysis of a target' and enumerates the accepted target forms (SHA-256, URL, command, package). It also explicitly excludes file/document upload, which sharpens the boundary of what this tool does.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the target can be named as text, and it warns that file uploads are not possible. It also explains the follow-up workflow with poll_scan and get_report. It does not explicitly contrast this with lookup_hash or other siblings, so a fully explicit when-not-to-use statement is missing.

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