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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the return content shape (event count, whether collection ran) and the empty-case behavior ('explanatory note when the page wrote nothing'), which an agent cannot get from annotations alone.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary return content, followed by edge-case behavior and the parameter clarification. No wasted text, though the final scan_id sentence reads as a tacked-on footnote rather than integrated guidance.

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-value detail is not required in the description, and the empty-case plus collection-status notes cover the main ambiguity. For a single-param read tool this is essentially complete, with only sibling routing left implicit.

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 the single scan_id parameter, so the description carries the burden: it defines scan_id as the UUID of a ScanMalware scan, which is meaningfully more than the schema's bare 'Scan Id' title.

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 and resource: returns clipboard writes a page attempted during a scan, with event count and collection status. This is clearly distinguishable in intent from get_clipboard_stats (aggregate) and search_suspicious_clipboard (search), though the description does not explicitly name those siblings.

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 phrase 'while it was scanned' implies this is a per-scan lookup requiring a scan_id from a completed scan, and the empty-result case is addressed. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_clipboard_stats or search_suspicious_clipboard, leaving routing to inference.

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