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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by indicating it aggregates multiple pieces of information in one call, but it does not discuss return granularity, freshness, or prerequisites beyond the implied scan_id.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and it lists the returned information compactly while linking to the related fix-prompt tool.

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 tool is simple with two required parameters and no output schema, and annotations already define it as a safe read. The description adequately explains what the tool returns, but it is incomplete on parameter meaning, which matters because both parameters are required and undocumented in the schema.

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 both parameters are required, but the description does not explain what workspace_token or scan_id represent or how they should be supplied. It relies entirely on parameter names, leaving a meaningful gap for the agent.

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 states the resource and what it returns: scan summary, analysis statuses, and ready fix prompts. It distinguishes itself from get_fix_prompt by saying it reports which fix prompts are ready in one aggregated call, though the verb is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'in one call' implies this is an aggregation/status tool, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_analysis, get_scan, or get_fix_prompt, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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