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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive), so the description's added "Same inputs deduplicate" is a genuine behavioral fact. However, it says nothing about the async/long-running nature implied by "GPU" work, whether an analysis ID is returned for polling via get_analysis, or cost/quota effects — the details an agent most needs here. There is also mild tension between the dedupe promise and idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the action plus scope are front-loaded before the dedupe caveat. Nothing extraneous, but nothing especially well-structured either.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never says what comes back (an analysis handle? a status?) or how to follow up on a GPU job that finishes later. For a three-required-param, open-world initiation tool, that leaves the calling agent guessing about the end-to-end workflow.

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 all three parameters (workspace_token, scan_id, fingerprint) are undifferentiated strings. The description only hints that scan_id and fingerprint jointly identify "one real scan finding" and never explains workspace_token at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb ("Start") plus a scoped resource ("GPU Red/Blue review of one real scan finding"), which separates it from start_scan (whole-scan initiation) and get_analysis (retrieval). The "Red/Blue review" phrasing is domain jargon an outside agent may not decode, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

"One real scan finding" implies a prerequisite (an existing finding from a completed scan) and singles out the per-finding scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no mention of get_analysis for polling results, and no statement about what to do if an analysis already exists.

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