Get urlscan.io result

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond those: the scan latency window, the pending-error failure mode, and the retry instruction. It loses a point only because the enumeration of return fields partially duplicates the output 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?

Front-loaded with the action and key, then two tight sentences of context. The parenthetical list of returned infrastructure is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but nothing is bloated.

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 an output schema, rich annotations, and a single documented parameter, the description supplies the only missing piece an agent needs: the polling/retry behavior and timing expectation. Nothing required to call it correctly is absent.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains that uuid is the scan uuid returned by scan_url. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 (fetch) and resource (urlscan.io scan results) keyed by uuid. It also names the sibling scan_url as the producer of that uuid, so the agent can distinguish it from search_urlscan or the lookup_* 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?

Explicitly says when to call it (after scan_url), what to expect in timing (10-30 seconds), and what to do on failure ('pending' error → wait and retry). This is exactly the when/when-not guidance an agent needs for an async polling pattern.

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