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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: the status vocabulary, the definition of 'expired' (not picked up by the app within 15 minutes), and the fact that it also returns app status. It does not discuss polling cadence or how long results remain available, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then mode-specific details, then next-step routing, so the structure matches how an agent would read it. It is dense in one long parenthetical and could be split, but no sentence is 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries return-value burden, and it does list the per-keyword statuses, ads found, and app status. It stops short of describing granularity or how counts/results are packaged, a minor gap for a status-polling tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines both parameters; baseline would be 3. The description goes further by disambiguating the two optional parameters semantically — scan_id is for keyword scans, request_id for Page/store/ad scans — which tells an agent which of two optional params to supply in a given situation, something the schema alone does not resolve.

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 names the specific resource (keyword scan or Page/store/ad scan) and what it reports (per-keyword queued, running, done, failed, expired, ads found). It explicitly ties each mode to the sibling tool that produced the identifier (spywin_queue_keyword_scan / spywin_list_my_scans vs spywin_queue_page_scan), so an agent can separate it from spywin_list_my_scans and spywin_get_scan_results.

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?

It states when to use each identifier variant and where each comes from, then gives explicit follow-up routing: done keyword scan -> spywin_get_scan_results; done Page/store/ad scan -> re-call the lookup tool. Both the entry condition and the exit path are named with alternatives.

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