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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the empty-result behavior, which is useful but modest additional context; no auth, rate-limit or pagination disclosure.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the empty case, then the parameter. Nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 further explanation, and the annotation set covers the operational profile. The only shortfall is the absence of routing guidance among the many related read/stat siblings.

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 description must carry the burden, and it does clarify that scan_id is a UUID belonging to a ScanMalware scan. That disambiguates it from the many other scan-identifier params in this family, though no format example or lookup source is given.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Get the malware detections for files the scanned page delivered', with an explicit enumeration of returned fields (threat names, detection counts, source). This is clearly distinguishable from data-shape siblings like get_malware_stats, though no alternative is named by name.

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?

'scan_id is the UUID of a ScanMalware scan' implicitly tells the agent this is a post-scan lookup keyed to a specific scan, and the empty-result note sets expectations. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_yara_by_scan, get_recent_threats, or get_malware_stats.

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