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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's "Read-only" is largely redundant. It does add genuine behavioral context beyond the annotations: results come back paged ("One page at a time") and include a chart plus time/country/device fields.

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 trigger condition and the sibling routing, then pagination, then a one-word safety note. 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?

For a read-only paginated read with no output schema, the description usefully previews the returned fields and the chart, and routes to the totals alternative. Date defaults and formats are handled in the schema, so nothing essential is missing.

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%, including date-range defaults and usage guidance for start_date/end_date, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about idqrcode, page or per_page beyond saying results are paged. 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 resource and scope: the scan log for one QR code, returning time, country and device plus a chart. It is clearly distinct from get_total_scans, though it doesn't differentiate itself from the other scan siblings (get_scans_by_country, get_qrcode_history) that could also return scan data.

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?

"Use this when the user wants the scan log for one QR code" gives a clear trigger, and "For just a total use `get_total_scans`" names the alternative and the condition that selects it. No explicit exclusion against the per-dimension scan tools or get_qrcode_history, so not a 5.

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