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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world hint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value the annotations cannot: it discloses that the response includes the monthly scan quota and flags a cost trade-off among models, both of which affect the caller's decision. It stops short of return shape or pagination, hence a 4 rather than 5.

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 concrete payload, then routing guidance, with no filler sentences. The single opening sentence is long and stacks five clauses with a parenthetical aside, which costs a little scannability but every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly shoulders the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so item by item, plus the quota signal. Minor gaps remain around what 'categories' actually are and how 'prompts active' is counted, but nothing prevents a correct call.

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?

There is a single parameter, projectId, with 100% schema coverage and a description pointing to list_projects as its source, so the schema does the work. The tool description only implies the per-site scoping ('one site') and adds no format or sourcing detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get what a scan of one site can be configured with') and then enumerates the exact payload: connected assistants, per-assistant models, categories, active prompt count, and remaining scans. That enumeration makes it unmistakably different from list_providers or list_scans without opening any schema.

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 gives an explicit ordering rule ('Call it before estimate_scan or start_scan to choose providers, models and a category') and pre-empts the obvious confusion with list_providers by naming it as the workspace-wide alternative. The agent knows both when to call this and which sibling to pick instead.

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