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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the two-step preview-then-confirm mutation flow, the return value (scan_id), quota limits (25/24h plus plan monthly cap), domain verification requirement, and required auth scope. This is exactly the behavioral context a mutation tool needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the flow, return value, prerequisites, and limits in a compact sequence. Dense with constraints but every sentence is relevant; it could trim slightly but there is no filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description supplies the return contract (scan_id) and the polling path (get_scan), plus prerequisites, quota, and auth scope. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and handle the response.

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 100%, so the schema already documents url, confirm, and profile with durations. The description reinforces the confirm semantics via the two-step flow but adds little syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (kick off a DAST security scan against a public URL), names the initiator/safety flow, and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by pointing at get_scan for polling and implying list_my_scans for history. An agent can tell this apart from lookup_cve or assess_dependency immediately.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context (public URL the API key owner controls), names the alternative for the follow-up step (poll with get_scan), and states prerequisites: domain must be verified and the API key needs the scans:create scope. Nothing essential is left to inference.

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