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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful trait beyond that – 'The response is large' – but says nothing about pagination, truncation, auth requirements, or behavior when the scan_id is unknown.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the what, followed by the size/alternative guidance. The field enumeration is long but doubles as the selection signal versus the summary tool; no sentence is pure 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 an output schema present, the return-value listing is arguably redundant, but the safety annotations plus the 'large response' caveat and the summary alternative give an agent everything needed to choose and call the tool. Only scan_id provenance is left unaddressed.

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 single scan_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load; it partially does by identifying scan_id as 'the UUID of a ScanMalware scan'. It does not say where that UUID comes from (submit_scan, wait_for_scan, search_scans), leaving the sourcing gap.

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 ('Get the full result document of one scan') and enumerates the contents, so an agent instantly knows this is the heavyweight per-scan detail endpoint. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the summary-style siblings by noting the compact summary suffices for a verdict.

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?

Explicitly frames when this tool is overkill: 'the compact summary is enough for a verdict', steering agents away from the large response. It stops short of naming the alternative tool (get_scan_summary) or stating prerequisites like a completed scan, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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