get_deep_scan_status

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description reinforces these by stating 'Read-only' and 'No auth, no side effects.' It adds context on the polling behavior and return contents (progress, scores, per-test results, failures) which is beyond the annotations but not extensive; a 4 is appropriate since it adds some value without contradicting.

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 concise, with only three sentences. It is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Read-only status poll'), then details return contents, then provides usage and alternatives. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 the tool is a read-only status poll with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers key aspects: purpose, return contents, usage, and alternatives. It lacks some detail on return format (e.g., JSON structure) but that's not required when no output schema exists; it is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity. A 4 is justified.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'scanId' with description 'Deep scan ID returned by start_deep_scan'. The tool description repeats this information, but since the schema already provides clear semantics, the description does not add significant extra value. Baseline 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 the tool's purpose: to poll the status of a long-running deep scan, mentioning the resource (scan) and the specific action (get status). It explicitly mentions the tool name 'get_deep_scan_status' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_email_test' and 'scan_domain' by focusing on deep scan status polling.

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 explicit usage guidance: it states when to use this tool (after start_deep_scan, poll every 10-30s until finished) and when not to (for fast single-vantage scans, prefer scan_domain). It also gives the prerequisite: requires a scanId from start_deep_scan. This is a model example of usage guidelines.

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