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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context: this is a polling tool, safe to re-invoke after a scan request, and creating a new scan just to check status is wasteful. It omits auth/permission needs, but that is minor given the annotation coverage and the presence of an output schema.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the polling constraint. No filler; every clause carries a distinct instruction.

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 need no explanation, and annotations carry the safety profile. The polling/usage context completes the operational picture; the only gap is parameter origin, which the description does not address.

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 neither scanId nor brandId is documented anywhere. The description only hints at brandId via 'for this brand' and at scanId via 'a scan' – it does not explain identifier formats, sources, or how to obtain them. With two required undocumented params, the description should compensate but does not.

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 (read) and resource (scan status and saved brief) scoped 'for this brand'. It also contrasts itself against the scan-starting sibling, so an agent can distinguish it from scan_intelligence_target without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('poll this after requesting a scan') and when not ('never start a new scan merely to check status'). Clear operational guidance, though it never names the alternative tool by name, leaving the mapping to scan_intelligence_target implicit.

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