Get a full-site scan run by id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it is a polling operation (implies repeated calls), provides progress, severity counts, and failure reason. The 'Pro+' hint about access control is additional.

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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence defines the tool's core function, second provides a clear alternative. Information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is complete for a simple read-only poll tool with one parameter and an output schema. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, prerequisites (run started by scan_site), and distinguishes from sibling. No gaps.

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 100% and already states 'The id returned by scan_site.' The tool description reinforces this by mentioning the parameter in context ('Polls a full-site run started by scan_site — ...'). This adds value by linking the parameter to the tool's workflow.

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 verb 'polls', the resource 'full-site run started by scan_site', and what it returns (page progress, severity counts, failure reason). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_scan' by specifying the scope (full-site vs single-page).

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 explicitly says when to use ('after scan_site') and provides an alternative ('For a single-page scan from scan_url, use get_scan instead'). Also mentions 'Pro+' which indicates access tier requirements.

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