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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description reveals that the tool costs credits, takes 5-20 seconds, and returns synchronously when done. It also discloses that results are consumed by search and get_detections, giving the agent a clear picture of side effects and resource implications.

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 two compact sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by cost, latency, and a strong 'usually unnecessary' caveat. Every clause adds actionable information.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it does, cost, latency, and when to avoid it. It does not specify what the return value looks like (e.g., a task ID), but given the presence of sibling tools like get_task, this omission is minor.

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%, with target_id and target_type already described. The description merely restates 'generation or asset' without adding new format or usage details, so it does not elevate the parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool 'runs the detection scan' on a generation or asset, and enumerates the detection types (items, colors, textures, scene). It distinguishes itself from retrieval tools like get_detections by focusing on the action of scanning rather than reading results.

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 explicitly says 'Usually unnecessary' because scans happen automatically, which tells the agent not to use it by default. It also notes that results power search and get_detections, implying those are the downstream consumers, though it stops short of naming when exactly to force a scan (e.g., after a failed scan).

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