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

Annotations indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds key behavioral context beyond that: the job is enqueued asynchronously, results are not returned directly, and this is a write-tier action. This helps the agent set correct expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core action and includes only useful details: check types, relevant params, endpoint, write tier, and how to read results. The one minor drawback is that it packs several clauses into a single long sentence, but each element earns its place.

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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, and an asynchronous job workflow, the description covers the essential operational flow: what to pass, how the two check types differ, and how to retrieve results afterward. Nested params and scheduling are also documented in the schema, so the overall picture is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics by explaining what http_probe and doc_check actually do and which params each requires. This goes beyond the schema's per-property descriptions by tying parameters to concrete check behavior.

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 and resource: 'Enqueue an autonomous verification job for a task completion,' and names the exact endpoint. It clearly distinguishes itself from the read-side sibling by saying 'Read the result with tascan_list_verifications once the job runs.'

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?

It clearly explains when to use the tool and what it does, including the two check types and their parameter shapes. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives, but it does provide complementary usage guidance by directing the agent to read results via tascan_list_verifications.

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