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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds a meaningful non-obvious behavioral fact: quota resets per calendar month and does not roll over. This extra context helps agents avoid misinterpreting stale quota values, which is more than the annotations alone provide.

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 concise sentences: the first states what the tool returns, the second gives actionable usage guidance and a key rule. No redundant words; every part 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 zero-parameter read-only status tool without an output schema, the description is complete: it explains the data returned, the timing caveat, and when to invoke it. Nothing an agent needs to correctly select and call this tool is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the input schema is complete, so the description has no need to explain parameters. Baseline of 4 is appropriate given the absence of parameters.

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?

Description clearly states the resource (account usage and quota) and the specific information returned: scans left, plan, and allowed categories. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_scan_report or list_scans by focusing on account-level quota rather than individual scans.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to check this before bulk scan operations, providing a clear triggering condition. It does not name alternative tools for exclusions, but the context makes the tool's role as a pre-flight check obvious.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the shape of the return payload (executive summary plus per-category results) and the quota-free nature of repeated reads. It stops short of describing behavior when a scan is still running or any rate/latency characteristics.

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 tight sentences with the action and payload front-loaded, followed by the usage rationale. No filler, no 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully sketches the return contents and the quota behavior that motivates re-reading. The one gap is what happens if the referenced scan has not finished (partial vs pending results), which matters given the 'collect a scan that run_scan left running' framing.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both scan_id and lang documented in the schema itself. The description only reinforces that lookup is 'by id' and adds nothing about the lang parameter or id constraints, so the schema carries the full burden as expected at baseline.

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 ('Fetch the full findings for a scan by id') and enumerates what the payload contains ('executive summary and per-category results'). It also positions itself relative to run_scan, so an agent can distinguish this read-only retrieval from the scan-creating sibling without opening schemas.

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?

Gives two concrete selectors: collecting a scan that run_scan left running, and re-reading an earlier scan without spending quota. It names the relevant alternative (run_scan) and the condition that favors this tool, though it does not state explicit exclusions or point to list_scans for enumeration.

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

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

The annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the behavioral nuance that the tool returns nothing useful for a site scanned only once and that it surfaces trends, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe return shape, pagination, or any other noteworthy runtime 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?

Two sentences, highly efficient. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds a crucial edge-case warning. There is no filler or repetition, and the main concept is front-loaded.

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 simplicity of the tool (zero params, no output schema), the description gives enough for an agent to understand its purpose, expected data, and pitfall. It does not describe the exact output format, but the absence of an output schema and a straightforward read-only function makes that a minor gap.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 for no parameters applies, and the description's focus on behavior aligns with the empty input schema.

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 this tool returns score history per URL across repeated scans and indicates trend direction. It differentiates from siblings like get_scan_report through the 'repeated scans' framing, but it does not explicitly name or contrast any alternative tool.

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 use case is clear: use this when you need to see whether a site is improving or regressing across multiple scans. It also gives a when-not case ('site scanned only once'), but it does not explicitly mention sibling tools that should be used instead, such as get_scan_report or list_scans, so usage guidance is strong but not fully explicit.

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

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are plan-dependentchers, and run_scan refuses rather than skips unavailable categories. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences, both information-dense. The first states the purpose, the second gives a precise usage directive. No redundancy or filler.

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 parameterless listing tool, the description completely covers what it returns (categories and plan inclusions), why to use it, and its relationship to run_scan. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 fits because no parameter documentation is required, and the description still clarifies what the list contains.

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 resource ('analysis categories SyteCan can run') and adds plan-specific scope ('which of them this account's plan includes'). It reads as an explicit listing tool and is distinguishable from run_scan, which is about executing scans.

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?

Explicitly instructs the agent to check this tool before calling run_scan推理 and warns that requesting a withheld category is refused outright. This gives a clear decision rule for when to invoke the tool.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ordering ('newest first') and account scoping, which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about pagination defaults or result volume beyond what the schema documents.

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 tight sentences with the ordering constraint front-loaded and the practical uses immediately after. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

With no output schema, the description implies the return content by mentioning finding a 'scan id'. For a simple four-param, zero-required listing tool whose annotations cover safety, that is nearly complete, though it could note that results are paginated.

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 description coverage is 100%, so page, page_size, query and the status enum are all self-documenting. The description adds no syntax or filtering guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List this account's scans') plus the ordering ('newest first'), which lets an agent distinguish it from the single-scan sibling get_scan_report. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives two concrete use cases: locating a scan id and checking whether a site has already been scanned before starting a new one (implicitly routing to run_scan). Clear context, though no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives by name.

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

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true); the description adds the substantive traits an agent needs — monetary/quota cost per call, free-tier limit of three per month, multi-minute latency, and asynchronous return of a scan id. This is disclosure well beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core action, then the critical cost warning, then the async-handoff instruction. Every sentence carries distinct operational value with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining that a still-running scan returns a scan id to be passed to get_scan_report. Combined with the quota and latency warnings, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly on the first attempt.

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 description coverage is 100%, so url, label, and categories are already documented in the schema, including the pointer to list_categories. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Submit a URL to SyteCheck') and enumerates the ten quality dimensions the scan covers, so an agent knows exactly what comes back. The scope is clearly distinct from siblings like get_scan_report or list_scans.

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?

Explicitly routes to get_account_usage to check quota, instructs confirming repeat scans with the user, and names get_scan_report as the alternative when the scan is still running. It states both when to use the tool and when not to re-invoke it.

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