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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: results are bucketed by severity (critical/high/medium/low) and category, and the empty-result case is called out, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret responses.

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: purpose, return shape, empty case. No repetition, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 enumerated, and the description still previews the severity/category summary and empty case. For a one-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the sibling-routing guidance 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% for the single scan_id parameter, so the description must carry the burden. It specifies the format (UUID) and the originating entity (a ScanMalware scan), which meaningfully constrains how the value should be sourced.

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 YARA rule matches for one scan') and pins the scope to a single scan, which implicitly separates it from aggregate siblings like get_yara_matches or get_yara_stats. It does not, however, name any sibling explicitly, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 single-scan scope implies when this tool applies, and the note that scan_id belongs to a 'ScanMalware scan' gives context for invocation. There is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to the alternatives (get_yara_matches, get_recent_yara_threats, get_yara_stats), so usage is only implied.

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