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 the aggregation scope (platform-wide rather than per-scan), which is genuine behavioral context, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or freshness of the counts.

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 with no filler; the resource and its output content are front-loaded, and the scoping caveat follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 and no parameters are required, so the description need not explain return values; annotations carry the safety profile. It is essentially complete, with only the mild redundancy between 'platform-wide' and 'not a particular scan' keeping it from a 5.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the empty schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get platform-wide statistics for the scan analysis modules') and even spells out what the statistics contain ('the modules and their run counts'). The final clause distinguishes it from scan-scoped siblings like get_analyzer_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?

'Describes the service, not a particular scan' gives a clear selection condition that separates this aggregate tool from the many per-scan siblings. It stops short of naming a specific alternative (e.g., get_analyzer_results) or an explicit when-not-to-use case, so it is context without exclusions.

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