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

With no annotations, the description does carry real behavioral weight: it discloses that the operation is asynchronous ('Queue...', 'once the worker processes the job') and that results are not returned inline, which is the critical fact. It omits other relevant traits such as whether re-queueing duplicates a job, expected processing time, or any cost/rate-limit behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and following immediately with where the results go. Every clause 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?

For a one-parameter async job tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential mechanics: it queues, a worker processes it, and results are read back via get_site/get_findings. That is sufficient to call it correctly; only edge cases like duplicate queueing are unaddressed.

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% and there is a single required parameter already documented as 'Site id from list_sites'; the description adds nothing beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 verb and resource: 'Queue a diagnosis scan for a site', with the parenthetical '(the deterministic playbook)' disambiguating what kind of scan. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling external_scan, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

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?

Implicitly tells the agent this is the entry point and that retrieval happens through get_site/get_findings, which is useful routing context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, e.g. versus external_scan or probe, and no prerequisite caveats.

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