Get a scan report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool does not spend quota on re-reads, and it returns full findings including executive summary and per-category results. This goes beyond what annotations alone communicate, though it does not describe the exact output shape.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool does and what is included; the second gives clear usage context. Key information is front-loaded and every sentence 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 simple two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it identifies the input (scan id), the returned content (full findings, executive summary, per-category results), and the relevant use cases. No critical operational context is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the parameters scan_id and lang are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond referring to 'a scan by id'. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and a clear resource ('full findings for a scan by id'), and further specifies the contents as 'the executive summary and per-category results.' This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like list_scans and get_scan_trends, which serve different reporting or listing purposes.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'to collect a scan that run_scan left running' or 'to re-read an earlier scan without spending quota.' This names the originating sibling (run_scan), provides a concrete trigger condition, and explains the advantage over re-running a scan.

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