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

With no annotations provided, the description proactively states 'Reads only,' which is a meaningful behavioral disclosure for a read operation. It also explains field semantics, specifically that estimated_savings is a prediction while optimized_from and optimized_to are measured. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, or error behavior, but it adds useful transparency beyond the bare schema.

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 two tight sentences with no wasted text. It front-loads the core purpose and uses the second sentence for high-value field interpretation. Every phrase 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 the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the return contains: scan status, findings, saved outputs, and download addresses. It also clarifies the meaning of key measurement fields. It does not cover possible status values, pagination, or error cases, but it is substantially complete for a single-parameter read tool.

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 only one parameter, scan_id, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including where to obtain the id. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema provides. A baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states that this tool returns a scan's status, findings, saved outputs, and download addresses for ZIPs, replacement maps, and reports. This is a specific verb-and-resource definition. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_website_report, get_replacement_mapping, or list_website_scans, which could cause selection ambiguity.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_website_report or list_website_scans. 'Reads only' describes safety, not usage. The only contextual clue is the required scan_id, which the schema says comes from list_website_scans, but the description itself does not route the agent.

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