Status and report of a paid scan

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two real behavioral facts beyond that: the call is free (cost) and it returns status first, report only 'once done' (non-blocking/polling semantics). It omits auth/accessToken requirements, rate limits, and job lifetime.

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 short sentences with no waste; the cost note and the scan_repo linkage are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 and 0% parameter coverage, the description should describe the report payload shape and the meaning of the three required inputs, but it only says 'its JSON report'. For a status-plus-report tool this leaves the agent materially under-informed.

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% and there are three required parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet it explains none of them. jobId, ecosystem (enum solana/evm), and accessToken are all left undefined in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess their formats.

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 (returns) and two concrete resources (scan status, JSON report), and ties itself to the sibling that creates the job (scan_repo). An agent can distinguish it from watch_status/watch_create on the basis of the scan_repo linkage 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?

'Started with scan_repo' implies the polling workflow after a scan is kicked off, which is a useful usage cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no alternative named (e.g. versus watch_status), so the routing signal is only inferred.

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