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 usefully discloses the polling loop, the two terminal states, and an authentication requirement, but omits return format, error behavior, and rate-limit or retry guidance.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core polling behavior. The auth note is terse but does not bloat the definition; a slightly clearer phrasing of the token requirement would improve it.

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 simple one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the polling semantics and authentication. However, it leaves the caller without information about what a successful poll returns or what job_id refers to.

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 0% and the single parameter 'job_id' is not explained in the description. The text does not clarify that job_id is the identifier returned by start_scan or how to obtain it.

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 uses the specific verb 'poll' with the resource 'scan job' and states the terminal conditions 'processed or failed'. This clearly separates it from the sibling 'start_scan', though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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 polling instruction implies the tool is used after starting a scan and should be repeated until a terminal state, but it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives or when not to call it.

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