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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that results include status, success flag and timing, which is return-shape detail rather than a behavioral trait like auth needs or rate limits. With annotations carrying most of the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, then the fields returned, then the motivating use case, then the parameter clarification. No filler and no repetition of title or structured fields.

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 not be described, and the description still covers purpose, use case and parameter format. Its only gap is not routing the agent away from look-alike siblings such as get_analyzer_stats or search_analyzer_high_risk.

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%, so the single scan_id parameter is undocumented in the schema, and the description compensates by stating it is the UUID of a ScanMalware scan. That supplies format and referent meaning beyond the bare string type, which is exactly what the low coverage requires.

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 (list) and resource (analysis modules for one scan), with examples of what a module is and what each row contains. It contrasts implicitly with aggregate siblings like get_analyzer_stats by scoping to 'one scan', but never names an alternative explicitly, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Provides a concrete use case: 'Useful for checking why a result is missing.' That is clear context for when to reach for this tool rather than a scan-summary or stats endpoint. However, it names no alternatives and gives no exclusions, so it stops short of the 5 bar.

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