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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the tool returns status, severity counts, state of five fronts, and most severe finding per front with evidence; other findings omit evidence and fix steps, with freemium gating. It also describes presentation flow and API key connection. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 long but well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It covers polling behavior, return fields, limitations, and presentation steps, with every sentence contributing useful information. It is slightly verbose given the complexity, but not wasteful.

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?

This is a complex tool with polling, conditional status, multiple return components, and freemium restrictions. The description fully covers status handling, return structure (severity counts, five fronts, most severe findings), omitted evidence/fix steps, reportUrl, and API key connection. Since no output schema exists, the description carries the burden and does so completely.

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?

The schema describes scanId as 'O scanId devolvido por check_site_security' with 100% coverage. The description reinforces this by referencing scanId as the identifier from check_site_security, but it does not add new semantic details beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lê' - reads) and a clear resource ('andamento e o resultado de uma verificação iniciada por check_site_security'), and identifies the required scanId. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings: check_site_security initiates the check, and how_to_connect_ecoa connects an API key, whereas this tool reads 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: after check_site_security, to poll the status via scanId. It gives detailed polling instructions (wait retryAfterSeconds while running, query again) and says to present the result when completed. It also directs offering reportUrl and how_to_connect_ecoa when the user wants to fix issues, providing clear workflow context.

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