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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that data is real (not sample), global across ScanHood, and completed scans, which indicates a read-only historical query. It does not describe the return format, pagination, or rate limits, leaving some ambiguity about output structure.

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 a single, tight sentence cluster (21 words) that front-loads the tool's purpose and includes one use-case phrase. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 simple 2-param retrieval with no output schema, the description conveys scope, recency, and verdict filtering, but doesn't explicitly state the return shape (e.g., list of scans with token/verdict/timestamp). Given the lack of output schema, a bit more detail on what each entry contains would make it fully complete, though it's adequate for basic selection.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds 'optionally filter by verdict,' which reinforces the verdict param, and mentions 'all of ScanHood' as scope, but doesn't elaborate on limit semantics beyond the schema's max/default.

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 identifies the tool as returning recent completed token safety scans across all of ScanHood, with optional verdict filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing global scope and real activity, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' and doesn't reference alternative tools.

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 implies usage via 'powers the recent rugs caught / safe launches today homepage modules,' giving context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools like get_scan_rollup or scan_token.

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