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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the return field list, which the output schema already provides; it says nothing about result caps, pagination, or ordering.

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 filter semantics and no filler. The second sentence describing result fields is mildly redundant given the output schema, but it is inexpensive and readable.

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, return values need no further explanation and annotations cover the safety profile. The remaining gap is operational: nothing about the limit default/behavior, and no routing guidance against the closely related search_ai_high_risk and search_ai_scam_type siblings.

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. It restates the classification enum values with useful framing ('AI analysis gave a specific classification'), but the limit parameter is documented nowhere, including whether it caps or truncates results.

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 scans') scoped by the AI classification value, and enumerates the five valid classes so an agent knows exactly what population is returned. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_ai_high_risk, which appears to be a fixed subset of this same filter.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumerated classifications (call it when you want scans binned by AI risk verdict), but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as search_ai_high_risk or search_ai_scam_type.

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