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

The description highlights async behavior and return of a task id, which adds value beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (beyond the non-destructive hint), rate limits, or required permissions. Annotations already cover read-only and destructive hints.

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 that directly convey the core purpose, async behavior, and return value. Every sentence is efficient and relevant, with no wasted words.

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 description explains the return value (task id) since no output schema exists, but it lacks detail on polling or interpreting results. With 7 parameters and many siblings, the description could provide more context on distinguishing from related tools.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description repeats the enum values for scan_type but omits 'diagram' and 'account', though these are implied in the scoping context. Overall, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool runs a cloud/platform or compliance scan against an account or diagram, with specific scan types enumerated. It distinguishes the tool's async nature and return of a task id, making its purpose 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 implies usage for initiating scans but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools like compliance_status or get_cloud_compliance for checking results. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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