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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the non-obvious trait that listing ADVANCES a running reconstruction, plus the credit cost and the meaning of each status value. It stops short of describing pagination or ordering behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and poll role, then enumerates status values compactly. Slightly dense with parentheticals, but every sentence carries distinct information and none is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description usefully covers the return surface: status values, the URLs that get filled on 'done', and where failure reasons appear. It leaves the row's remaining fields and ordering unpinned, but is sufficient to call and interpret the 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 description coverage is 100% and the single project_id parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description implies project scoping but adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema's 'positive integer as string' note.

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 (List) and resource (a project's location scans) and immediately frames the tool's role — the poll for lab_location_recon and the source of scan ids — which distinguishes it from siblings like lab_list_locations or lab_get_location.

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 names the alternative relationship ('this is the POLL for lab_location_recon and the place the scan ids come from'), so an agent knows both when to call it and where the ids it needs originate.

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