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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important traits: 'Reads only' (safe, non-mutating) and 'Paged' (pagination semantics). It still omits the page-size ceiling, behavior on an invalid or expired scan_id, and whether results are eventually consistent.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by paging/filtering and the read-only guarantee. Nothing is wasted or repeated.

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 5-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return fields, pagination, filtering, and safety. Minor gaps remain around result ordering, total counts, and the meaning of the four status enum values.

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 60%, with offset undocumented anywhere and scan_id only explained in the schema. The description reinforces the search and status filters and the paging model but adds no syntax, matching rules, or defaults beyond what the schema already states.

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 resource and scope: a page inventory for a given scan, with the fields it returns. It is distinguishable from list_website_scans and list_website_assets by the 'pages of a scan' framing, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'Paged; filter by status or search' implies how to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer get_website_scan or list_website_assets instead, and no prerequisites beyond the scan_id note living in the schema.

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