batch_scan_start

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the operation is durable, asynchronous, returns a stable job ID, and has explicit idempotency-replay semantics conditional on principal, normalized inputs, and scoring versions. This complements the annotations (idempotentHint=false) by clarifying that replay is safe only with the same idempotency key, not a general guarantee.

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 primary action and scope are in the first clause, and the idempotency/replay behavior is front-loaded in the second sentence. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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?

The description adequately covers what the tool does and the key idempotency contract, but it omits guidance on how to retrieve the scan results or monitor progress (e.g., use batch_scan_status or batch_scan_findings). Given there is no output schema, a brief mention of the job ID's role in follow-up steps would make it more complete.

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 schema already documents all four parameters and their constraints. The description adds no new parameter-level detail; it only references the idempotency key's behavior, which is a behavioral note rather than a semantic explanation of the parameter values.

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 ('Start') with a clear resource ('durable asynchronous scan of 1–10 domains') and states a concrete outcome (stable job ID). It is semantically clear but does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar batch-start siblings like brand_audit_batch_start or discover_brand_domains_start, nor from the synchronous batch_scan 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 description implies use for asynchronous batch scans via 'durable asynchronous scan', but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like batch_scan_status, batch_scan_findings, or scan_domain. No exclusions or routing hints are provided.

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