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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent. The description adds critical behavioral details: long-polling server-side up to 45 seconds, waiting for done/failed status, returning masked handles (no real handles/contacts), and the hint format. This goes well beyond the annotations and provides meaningful operational context.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and content, then explains the long-poll behavior and usage. Every clause 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 tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently describes the return content (progress, locked preview rows, fields) and the long-poll semantics. It also gives the usage sequence and retry guidance, making it fully actionable for an agent.

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%, with run_id and wait_seconds fully described including defaults and sources. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb and resource ('get quick scan preview'), enumerates the content (progress and locked preview rows with platform, followers, hint, masked handle), and explicitly distinguishes its purpose from status polling by mentioning the paid-plan unlock use case. It clearly separates from get_scan_status and start_quick_scan.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use it to show the user what a paid plan unlocks, then get_checkout_link.' It also explains the long-poll behavior and advises calling again while status is queued or running. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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