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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by naming the returned fields (status, files checked, duplicate groups, reclaim_bytes) in the absence of an output schema, though it says nothing about result limits or pagination.

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 dense sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the return fields and then the filter parameter. Nothing is redundant; even the parenthetical explanation of reclaim_bytes 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 read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it explains the ordering, the per-entry fields, and the only filter. Missing pagination/limit behavior and whether in-progress scans appear keep it from being 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?

There is one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, and the description supplies its meaning: connection_id filters by cloud. It does not say the parameter is optional or what happens when it is omitted (presumably all clouds), leaving a small gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource (list of duplicate scans) plus ordering (newest first) and the fields each entry carries. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_dedup_scan (single scan) or start_dedup_scan, so an agent must infer the plural/singular split from the names.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'list' versus the sibling get_dedup_scan suggests enumerating all scans, and the connection_id filter hints at narrowing by cloud. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_dedup_scan or which scans (running vs finished) are included.

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