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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation is a poll (implying repeated calls) and that no API key is required, which is useful. However, it does not describe what happens if the scan is still running, error cases, or the response shape, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loading the purpose and then providing usage instruction. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for a simple polling tool.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter poll tool without an output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what it does, where to get parameters, and authentication. It omits return value details, but given the tool's simplicity and clear sibling relationship, this is a minor gap. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 parameter descriptions already exist. The description adds minor value by stating both IDs come from the start response, but this largely repeats the schema descriptions (e.g., 'from guest_start_scan'). No additional format, constraints, or meaning are provided beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool polls results for a guest_start_scan, using the specific verb 'poll' and naming the resource. It differentiates from the sibling tool guest_start_scan by focusing on retrieving results after a scan is initiated. The instruction to pass scanId and guestSessionId from the start response reinforces its complementary role.

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 description implies usage after calling guest_start_scan, as it references passing IDs from the start response. It provides clear context for when to use the tool, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The pairing with guest_start_scan makes the intended usage obvious.

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