batch_scan_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations: results are 'owner-scoped', so jobs belonging to other callers will not be visible. It still says nothing about whether the response reports progress, terminal states, or expiry, and with no output schema that gap is left open.

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?

One sentence with zero waste, and the key qualifier ('asynchronous') and the access constraint ('owner-scoped') are front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specified for a polling tool.

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 is the only place to explain what a status read returns (state, progress, completion signal) and it does not. The parameters and safety hints are adequately covered elsewhere, so it is callable, but an agent still cannot predict the response shape or the correct follow-up call.

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 coverage is 100%: job_id carries its pattern and a pointer to batch_scan_start, and format documents its enum plus auto-detection. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, but it earns no extra credit.

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 plus resource ('Read ... status') and scopes it to an asynchronous batch scan, which separates it from batch_scan_start and batch_scan_findings by phase. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the agent must infer the start-poll-read workflow from naming alone.

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?

'asynchronous batch scan' implies this is the polling step after batch_scan_start, but the description never says when to call it, how often, or what to call once the job finishes (batch_scan_findings). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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