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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating the operation, such as whether the scan must be completed, what data is included in the netlog, or any rate limits. The minimal description does not exceed what annotations already provide.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no redundant phrasing, making it highly concise and easily parsable.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks contextual guidance about prerequisites or relation to sibling tools. Given the existing annotation and output schema, the description is adequate for a basic invocation but incomplete for understanding when to choose it.

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 input schema has no description coverage (0%), so the description must compensate. It merely echoes the parameter name 'scan_id' without explaining format, constraints, or how to obtain a valid scan_id. This adds little beyond the schema structure and the parameter name itself.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'network log' with the parameter 'scan_id', clearly communicating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools that may also retrieve scan-related data, so it falls 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_scan_result or get_pcap_metadata. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative references, leaving the agent without usage context.

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