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

readOnlyHint=true is consistent with 'Get the result', so no contradiction. Beyond the annotation the description only adds id provenance; it says nothing about behavior when the scan is still running, unknown ids, or what the report contains — useful given there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the id-sourcing hint second; no filler or restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and full schema coverage, this is nearly sufficient. The only meaningful omission is what happens for pending/unknown scans, which matters because there is no output schema to describe the return shape.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds provenance the schema lacks: the id is produced by scan_site/recheck_site or appears in a wardzo.com/r/<id> URL. That directly helps the agent supply a valid value beyond the bare 'Scan id or report URL' schema text.

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 ('Get') and resource ('the result of a Wardzo scan') scoped by id, which cleanly separates it from mutation siblings like scan_site and recheck_site. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with read siblings such as get_site_status or list_issues, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 parenthetical tells the agent exactly where a valid id comes from — scan_site, recheck_site, or a wardzo.com/r/<id> link — which is the key prerequisite for calling it. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., vs. list_issues for browsing problems), but the usage context is clear.

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