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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: it spends credits, follows the same gates as the dashboard, refuses concurrent scans with scan_in_progress, and describes the guarded approval flow. It also explicitly states this is exactly what a dashboard user could do, no more, which adds safety context beyond 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 dense but well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, then explains gates and the approval flow, and ends with a clear guarantee. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more compact. It is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 destructive, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: cost, prerequisites, failure conditions, and the two-step approval process. It does not state what a successful call returns, but given the approval flow and the fact that the user is mimicking a dashboard action, the missing success response is a minor gap. Overall, the description is largely complete.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds value by explaining the approval_token flow ('call again with the token') and the overall process, which complements the schema's bare parameter descriptions. It does not introduce new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but the flow context is useful.

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 action: 'Start a creator scan for an app' with the side effect of spending scan credits. It is specific about the resource and verb, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling start_quick_scan, though the 'type' parameter suggests a distinction. Still, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 explains the approval flow and dashboard gates, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling start_quick_scan. It mentions the general conditions (subscription, no concurrent scan) but does not point to alternatives or exclude cases. There is no 'when not to use' guidance.

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