list_scan_results

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses that values are read LIVE rather than cached and that the server enforces a page-size cap referencing server_info().limits.max_page_size. That is meaningful context beyond the structured fields.

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 front-loaded with purpose, but the middle sentence about reading live values and tracking the target is discursive and bleeds into the parameter block without separation, making it denser than needed for two trivial pagination params.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is not required, and pagination is addressed. However, the required scan_id (its origin in scan_value/scan_pattern/refine_scan) and any relationship to the other read tools are left entirely unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it documents only limit ('rows per page') and offset ('rows to skip') — semantics largely derivable from the names. The required scan_id parameter is never explained: what a scan id is, where it comes from, or which sibling produces it.

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 ('page through') and resource ('a result set'), plus what is returned ('each address's current value'). It is distinguishable from single-address read_value and from refine_scan by implication, though it never names a sibling 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?

It offers a usage heuristic (call twice on a changing set to identify the live-tracking address), which is genuine guidance but specialized. It never states when to use this instead of read_value or refine_scan, so the routing is left to inference.

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