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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuine extra context: pagination and the important false-positive caveat that an IP match on shared hosting/CDNs is not evidence of a connection. It stops short of disclosing matching semantics (exact vs. historical IP) or limits.

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, zero waste, and the core purpose is front-loaded before the caveat. Every sentence earns its place by either defining the operation or preventing a misreading of results.

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 description needn't explain return fields (though it briefly does), and it covers pagination and the shared-hosting caveat. The main remaining gap is IP address format/matching semantics and any rate limits, which is minor given the annotations and output schema.

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% across all three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It hints at pagination, which loosely maps to page/limit, but gives no IP format guidance (IPv4 vs IPv6) and does not explain page/limit semantics, leaving the required ip_address meaningfully undocumented.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('List scans of pages served from an IP address') plus the scope and chosen projection ('scan ID, URL and time'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many search_by_asn / search_by_favicon / search_by_jarm siblings, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 resource (searching scans by IP) and the description adds a useful interpretive caveat about shared hosting/CDNs, but it never names an alternative (e.g. search_by_asn, get_ct_domains_by_ip) or states when-not-to-use this tool. It is adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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