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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the agent knows it is a safe read. The description adds no behavioral traits beyond 'full', such as the size or structure of the result, pagination, or resource considerations. It fails to add meaningful context beyond 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 sentence: 'Get full scan result by scan_id.' It is perfectly concise, front-loaded, and contains no filler or repetition. Every word is necessary and adds to the understanding of the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and an output schema exists, so return details aren't needed. However, the description lacks guidance on usage context, such as when to use this versus similar get_* tools. The word 'full' partially addresses this, but it could be more explicit. Given the low complexity and good annotations, the description is minimally viable but not fully complete.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. However, it merely states 'by scan_id', which simply echoes the schema property name. It does not explain where to obtain a scan_id (e.g., from submit_scan or list tools) or any format constraints. The description adds minimal value over the schema for this single parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get full scan result by scan_id.' It identifies the specific verb 'Get', the resource 'full scan result', and the key parameter 'scan_id'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scan_summary and get_scan_progress by emphasizing 'full' scope.

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 implies usage—when you need the complete scan result, you use this tool based on 'scan_id'. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, such as using get_scan_summary for a summary. With 'full' giving a hint, this is clear context without explicit exclusions.

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