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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: this is a polling endpoint meant to be called repeatedly after a scan request, which tells the agent repeated invocation is expected and no side effects result from polling.

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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the polling caveat immediately after. Nothing should be cut.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values (status and saved brief) need no elaboration, and the polling workflow is stated. The remaining gap is parameter provenance, which an agent may have to infer from the scan-request flow.

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% for both required parameters. 'For this brand' loosely hints at brandId, but the description never explains scanId, its UUID form, or that it comes from the scan request response — the one piece of information an agent most needs to call this correctly.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (read a scan status and saved brief) with scope ('for this brand'), which is clear enough to distinguish from sibling listing tools like list_intelligence_saved or get_intelligence_target. It also implicitly separates itself from the scan-starting sibling by warning against starting a scan just to check status.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance ('Poll this after requesting a scan') and an explicit anti-pattern ('never start a new scan merely to check status'), which routes the agent away from scan_intelligence_target for status checks. It does not name the sibling tool by name or state preconditions such as how long a scan takes to complete.

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