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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing. It does not say whether the scan is synchronous or dispatched as a background job (the presence of get_job and list_jobs strongly suggests async), what wait=false does, how timeouts are surfaced, or whether scanning third-party domains has authorization implications.

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 zero waste, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing. Nothing needs trimming; several things need adding.

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 four parameters, zero schema coverage, no annotations, and an async-looking job model, one sentence is far short of complete. The output schema covers return values, which helps, but callers still lack the behavior and parameter semantics needed to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only implicitly covers the required domains array. The three optional parameters — wait, timeout_s, and include_suspected — get no explanation of their effect on results or behavior, which matters most for include_suspected since it likely changes the finding set.

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 and resource: scanning a domain list for exposed secrets and debug exposures. That implicitly separates it from scan_file, which presumably takes a file path, but the description never names the alternative or the exact unit of work.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all — nothing about when to prefer this over scan_file, when to use wait=false with get_job, or any prerequisite such as authorization to probe the targets. The agent must infer the workflow from sibling names alone.

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