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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the result cap of 25, account-scoped ownership, and the fields returned (status, available score). It omits ordering (newest-first?) and what happens when more than 25 scans exist, i.e. whether truncation is silent.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the scope (account-owned, recent, capped at 25) front-loaded and the negative disambiguation last. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 lister with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the hard result cap, with annotations carrying the safety profile. The remaining gap is result ordering and empty/truncated-result behavior, which is minor but not zero.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, so the description must carry that burden. It mentions the 25 ceiling but never explains that 'limit' controls the number of scans returned, nor does it state the default of 10, leaving the only parameter's meaning to inference from the schema's minimum/maximum/default fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') plus resource ('recent website and repository scans') and scopes it to the connected CyberLens account, with the returned fields (status, score) named. The clause 'Does not start a scan' keeps it distinct from scan-creation tools, though it never names the closest sibling (get_my_scan) for retrieving a single scan's detail.

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?

'Does not start a scan' is an explicit when-not condition, and 'recent' plus the 25-item cap imply browsing/overview usage. It stops short of routing the agent to get_my_scan for detail or get_my_profile, so the alternative selection is only partly covered.

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