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

Beyond the annotations it discloses what an agent genuinely needs: retries are safe and return the same run, the operation takes minutes, a scan exceeding today's remaining budget is refused with a restart time, and scanning requires an accepted Terms/DPA and an upload-consent key. That adds real context (latency, quota refusal, auth gate) on top of the idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false already given.

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 essential routing and prerequisite information comes first, but the description is a run-on chain of clauses and the sentence about reading current connections and keeping earlier uploaded systems does not clearly earn its place. It is informative rather than padded, yet a tighter structure would improve scannability.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive, long-running scan tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, latency, quota refusal, retry behavior, and the next step. The only ambiguity is what 'reads current connections and keeps earlier uploaded systems' means for the caller, which slightly undercuts an otherwise complete picture.

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 single parameter is already documented, but the description adds the retry semantics tied to that id — the same upload_id returns the same run — which is meaning the schema does not convey. The rest of the parameter story is left to the schema, which is appropriate for a one-parameter tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Start a scan from a submitted upload and follow its run,' and it names the sibling that produces the input (submit_sources) and the one that consumes the result (get_map_overview). That lets an agent place it in the pipeline without opening a schema. The one muddy sentence, 'It also reads current connections and keeps earlier uploaded systems,' blurs the otherwise crisp purpose.

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 gives an explicit sequence (call after submit_sources with its upload_id, then call get_map_overview) plus the prerequisites that would otherwise cause a silent failure: an owner/admin must accept Terms and DPA at human_action_url, and the key needs upload consent. There is no explicit 'do not use this when…' exclusion, and the scan-budget refusal is described as a behavior rather than a routing rule, so it falls short of a 5.

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