start_deep_scan

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses critical behavior: long duration (30-120s), immediate return, read-only nature, and polling requirement. Could mention error handling or failure modes, but overall strong for a read-only scan tool.

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?

Description is concise with no wasted words. Front-loaded with core purpose, followed by usage guidance and behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity of a long-running polling scan and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, alternatives, and polling instructions. Missing error handling or outage scenarios, but sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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% with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific information beyond what is in the schema, so 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?

Clearly states it starts a long-running Internet.nl deep scan, returning a scanId immediately. Distinguishes from sibling scan_domain by noting the depth and compliance focus, and from cancel_deep_scan as the abort counterpart.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use (for stricter compliance reporting or when Internet.nl-grade audit is requested) and when not (sub-10s answers use scan_domain). Also mentions polling pattern and links to cancel_deep_scan as alternative.

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