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

With no annotations, the description still discloses key behavior: it is read-only, limited to the last hour, and returns status only rather than full job details. These details are useful and not contradicted by structured metadata, though return format and pagination are not discussed.

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 entire description is a single front-loaded sentence that states scope, return limitation, usage condition, and safety profile with no wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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 one-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it explains scope, purpose, usage trigger, and that only status is returned. Since no output schema exists, a brief note on the exact return fields would make it fully complete, but the current information is sufficient to call it 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?

There is only one parameter (agent id) and the schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already explaining that it is an Agent UUID from list_agents. The tool description adds no further parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 resources (deep scans and script generations), the scope (last hour), and the return type (status only), which clearly identifies what the tool lists. It does not explicitly name the sibling get_agent_job, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated outright.

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 provides a clear usage condition: 'use when a job_id was lost.' This effectively points the agent to this listing tool rather than direct job retrieval, though it does not explicitly mention the alternative get_agent_job or any when-not-to-use cases.

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