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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds a real prerequisite (user authorization) and retry semantics, which is useful beyond the annotations, but it omits that the scan is likely asynchronous and how progress is obtained. Note a mild tension: idempotentHint=false while the description advises reusing request_id for identical retries – it is a dedup-key pattern rather than a true contradiction.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the precondition, with no filler. The capitalized 'REAL' is unusual but does convey a meaningful distinction from demo flows.

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 an open-world, non-read-only operation with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves too much out: what is returned (e.g. a scan id), whether execution is async, and which sibling to call next for status. An agent can form the call but not a full 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% across four parameters, so the description must carry the burden and mostly does not. It only clarifies request_id's reuse-for-retries semantics; workspace_token and repository_url are never explained, and 'authorization required' conflicts with the schema where `authorized` is optional with a default of false, leaving ambiguity about whether it must be set.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a REAL public GitHub scan'), and the emphasis on 'REAL' implicitly separates it from demo/verification siblings like verify_demo. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from start_analysis or rescan, which are the closest alternatives.

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?

'User authorization required' gives one precondition, and 'Reuse request_id on identical retries' gives retry behavior. But there is no guidance on when to choose this over start_analysis, rescan, or audit_repository, so the agent must infer the routing.

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