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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the operation targets a 'running scan' and lists the returned progress fields, which is useful, but since an output schema exists that field list is largely redundant and no rate-limit/polling-cadence guidance is given.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return fields, then usage, then parameter format. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

With one required parameter, an output schema present, and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, use context, and parameter format adequately. It leaves a small gap around polling behavior versus the wait_for_scan sibling, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden here and does compensate: it states 'scan_id is the UUID of a ScanMalware scan', giving both format (UUID) and provenance. That is meaningful beyond the bare 'Scan Id' property title, though it doesn't say where the UUID comes from (e.g. submit_scan output).

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?

Names a specific verb and resource and enumerates exactly what it returns (current step, total steps, step name, percentage, status), so the agent knows precisely what data comes back. However, it does not distinguish itself from the obvious sibling 'wait_for_scan' or 'get_scan_result', which an agent scanning the tool list would likely confuse it with.

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?

'Useful for checking whether a scan has finished before reading its results' gives a clear use context and implies a polling pattern prior to fetching results. It stops short of naming the alternative (wait_for_scan) or stating when NOT to use polling, so no explicit exclusion is provided.

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