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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the capture payload is deliberately withheld, and the response is limited to existence/size/compression/content-type metadata, which prevents an agent from expecting binary data.

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, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (what is described, and that the capture is not returned) is front-loaded before the parameter note.

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 single-parameter, read-only metadata tool with annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering the return shape, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing. The parameter is resolved and the non-return of the capture is disclosed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does: it identifies scan_id as a UUID tied to a ScanMalware scan, which the schema (a bare string titled 'Scan Id') does not convey. It stops short of ID syntax details or failure behavior for unknown scans.

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 ('Describe') and resource (the PCAP recorded during one scan), then enumerates exactly what is returned: existence, size, compression, content type. 'The capture itself is not returned' cleanly separates this metadata reader from any tool that would fetch the artifact.

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?

Scope is clear from context ('recorded during one scan', 'scan_id is the UUID of a ScanMalware scan'), which implies when it is applicable. However, it never states when to reach for this versus related scan-scoped readers such as get_netlog or get_scan_result, and offers no exclusions.

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