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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the crucial context that the log body is not returned because it is often tens of megabytes gzipped, setting the right expectation about payload size and metadata-only results.

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 two sentences: the first states purpose and output fields, and the second explains why the log is not returned. Every clause adds value and there is no repetition or filler.

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?

Given a single required parameter, an output schema present, and annotations defining safety behavior, the description covers all necessary context: it names the resource, what it returns, and why it does not return the large payload. Nothing needed to call this tool successfully is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the parameter has no schema-level documentation. The description does tie scan_id to the network log resource, which is useful, but it does not explain the format, origin, or how to obtain a valid scan_id. It is enough to guess, but not enough to fully walk an agent through.

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 names both the resource ('Chrome NetLog') and the operation ('describe'), and specifies exactly what is reported ('whether one exists, its size, and its encoding'). It also states what is not returned, which clearly separates this from tools that fetch contents or analyze other scan data.

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 resource scope is clear: this is for a scan_id's network log metadata. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives, mention where scan_id comes from, or give exclusions such as 'use get_scan_result for the scan itself'.

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