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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the required poll interval and the fact that results include the actual commit, coverage, and up to 50 findings.

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 efficient sentence with no filler, and the polling cadence is front-loaded. Its telegraphic style makes it slightly cryptic, but every phrase contributes useful information.

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 read-only polling tool with no output schema, the description does explain the key return fields and polling interval. However, it omits all parameter semantics, which is a meaningful gap given 0% schema description coverage.

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 required parameters (workspace_token and scan_id) are undocumented in the schema. The description does not compensate by explaining either parameter's meaning or format, leaving the agent with almost no parameter guidance.

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 communicates a specific operation: poll a scan and return commit, coverage, and up to 50 LLM-input findings when complete. It distinguishes this polling behavior from sibling actions like start_scan or rescan, though it never explicitly labels the resource as 'scan status.'

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?

It gives clear usage context with the polling cadence ('Poll every >=10 seconds'), which tells the agent when and how often to call it. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use get_analysis instead.

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