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

With no annotations, the description discloses output format details and size considerations (compact vs large). It mentions the compact version is 'small enough to keep in context,' which is helpful. It does not cover error handling or prerequisites, but given the read-only nature, the transparency is good.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose, then quickly covers parameter behavior and sibling guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple fetch tool with explicit schema, the description covers what is returned, parameter effects, and links to siblings. It mentions size considerations. It does not cover what happens if the report isn't ready, but this is minor for a well-defined tool.

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% but the description adds value by explaining the 'full' parameter's effect on output size and how 'domain' is used for the heading. It also clarifies that 'scan_id' is returned by scan_url, enhancing the schema's brief descriptions.

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 fetches a finished report as compact, agent-ready Markdown with specific content (health, prioritized fix plan, issues collapsed). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_issue_detail and get_report, making the 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 explicitly tells when to use this tool (compact agent view vs full human report) and directs to get_issue_detail for expanding any single code. It also explains the effect of the 'full' parameter, providing clear guidance on alternatives.

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