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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety traits are covered. The description adds the field list and the scoping between all domains and one domain, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like default limit handling or pagination behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that directly states the action, scope, and output fields. There is no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 list tool with two optional parameters, full schema coverage, and strong annotations, the description is sufficient. It includes the output fields and the filtering behavior, so there are no significant gaps.

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% for both 'limit' and 'domain', so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no further semantics beyond mentioning the domain filter ('when a name is given'), which is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('scans'), specifies the fields returned (id, domain, run time, score), and distinguishes from siblings by noting the aggregation across all tracked domains or a single domain via the 'name' parameter. This is clear and unambiguous.

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?

The description clearly indicates when to use the tool: for listing recent scans, either globally or filtered to one domain. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the context of 'recent scans' and the optional domain filter provides adequate usage guidance.

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