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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether a job is queued asynchronously, what the wait/timeout parameters imply about blocking behavior, whether the scan is read-only or consumes quota, or what happens on timeout. Only the input file formats are conveyed, which is minimal for a four-parameter scan operation.

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 no filler, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficiently dense. Nothing is wasted, yet little is delivered.

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?

The output schema excuses explaining return values, but for a job-producing scan tool with four parameters and no annotations, the definition omits async behavior, timeout semantics, and the meaning of include_suspected. An agent cannot invoke this confidently without opening the schema and experimenting.

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%, so the description must compensate for three undocumented optional parameters (wait, timeout_s, include_suspected) and it says nothing about any of them. The only semantic hint is that path accepts CSV or TXT, which is marginal value over the bare schema.

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 (Scan) and a specific input resource (a CSV or TXT domain list), so an agent can tell this consumes a file rather than raw domains. It does not name the sibling scan_domains or state the relationship, so differentiation is left to inference.

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, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as scan_domains for inline domain input or get_job/list_jobs for tracking results. The agent must guess whether this is the right entry point for file-based scanning.

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