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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so the description's real contribution is the filtering rule ('Unlisted and private scans are never included') and the deterministic ordering. That is genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations, though pagination limits or result-set size caps are not disclosed.

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, zero filler, with the core scope (public, newest first) and pagination front-loaded before the detail about row contents.

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 not be documented, and the description nonetheless summarizes the row fields and the exclusion rule. Only the pagination parameter details (defaults, caps) are missing, which is a minor gap for a two-parameter read tool.

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% and neither parameter has a description, so the description is the only source of meaning — it identifies 'page' and 'limit' as the pagination controls, which is useful. However it omits the defaults (1 and 20) and any maximum for limit, leaving the schema as the sole source for those.

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 ('List the most recent public scans') with scope ('newest first', 'public') and the row shape. It implicitly separates itself from the many search_* siblings by being an unfiltered recency listing, but never names an alternative, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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 word 'recent' and 'newest first' imply the use case (browse latest activity), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer search_scans or the domain-specific getters, and no prerequisites mentioned. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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