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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Re-fetch', implying a read operation, but does not mention side effects, error behavior, required permissions, rate limits, or behavior for invalid/missing scan IDs.

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?

One concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and object. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes.

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 one-parameter read-style tool, the description communicates the core action and the required input. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent lacks clues about response shape, error handling, or how to discover scan_id. It is minimally sufficient but not fully 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by clarifying that scan_id is 'shareable', hinting at its origin. However, it stops short of specifying format, where to obtain it, or validation behavior, so compensation is partial.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Re-fetch') and a specific resource ('previous scan result') tied to a concrete identifier (scan_id). It clearly differentiates from sibling cited_scan by targeting existing results rather than initiating scans.

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 a use case (you need a scan_id from a prior scan) but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over cited_scan or other siblings, when not to use it, or alternative tools. No conditions or exclusions are provided.

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