Retrieve a previously run NEL VEIL scan by its id

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description's additional disclosure that it 'only reads scans that exist and are publicly retrievable by id' adds some context about access constraints. However, it doesn't elaborate on return format or error behavior beyond a brief mention of 'saved findings and score', which is not a significant behavioral disclosure.

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 moderately concise, starting with a direct question and answer, then explaining usage in clear sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and efficiently states exclusions without excessive verbosity, though it could be trimmed slightly by removing redundant details.

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?

Given no output schema, the description provides a basic hint of what is returned ('saved findings and score') and outlines usage cases. It doesn't specify the exact structure of the result or handling of missing scans, but for a simple read-by-id tool with strong annotations, this is nearly 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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already explains the scan_id format ('from a nelprofessional.com scan page or report link'). The description repeats this but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so a 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 clearly states it 'Fetches the stored results of a scan already run' by scan id, and explicitly distinguishes itself from scan_domain ('It cannot start a new scan: use scan_domain for that'). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios ('summarise it, compare it against a later scan, or turn it into a remediation plan') and names the alternative tool (scan_domain) for starting new scans. It also clarifies that it only reads publicly retrievable existing scans, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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