panelica_antivirus_get_v1_antivirus_scan_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only behavior is covered. The description adds useful context in the form of the required scope (security:read) and the concrete endpoint path. It does not describe response shape, pagination, error behavior, or what fields a scan object contains, but for a simple read-only GET with strong annotation coverage this is acceptable.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action before useful metadata. The only slight redundancy is 'Get scan' repeated as the first line, which duplicates the title, but the rest of the lines—HTTP path, category, scope, read-only—are efficient and each 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only GET with rich annotations, the description provides the essential context: endpoint, method, category, required scope, and safety. No output schema exists, but the absence of return-value details is a minor gap because the request itself is fully specified and the agent can reasonably infer the response is the scan object for the given ID.

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 single parameter 'id' is already described as 'Path parameter: id'. The description reinforces that the id belongs in the URL via '/v1/antivirus/scan/:id', but adds no deeper semantic meaning, such as where to obtain the scan ID or what values are valid. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 states the verb and resource clearly: 'Get scan' with HTTP GET /v1/antivirus/scan/:id. It is immediately clear this retrieves a specific scan by ID. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling antivirus tools like status or quarantine, so it stops short of a top score.

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 provides the HTTP method, category, required scope, and read-only nature, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not name or contrast siblings such as panelica_antivirus_post_v1_antivirus_scan or panelica_antivirus_get_v1_antivirus_status, and does not explain the context in which fetching a scan by ID is appropriate.

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