Start a full-site scan

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

Annotations are minimal, but the description adds key behavioral details: it queues asynchronously (returns immediately), requires a Pro+ plan (SCAN_FULL_SITE), and scans all reachable pages. No contradiction with annotations. Could mention rate limits or retries, but sufficient.

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 efficient sentences: first states purpose, second adds usage pattern and prerequisite. Zero wasted words and critical details are 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?

With one parameter, high schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, async behavior, plan requirement, and prerequisite. No gaps left unexplained.

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%, with a detailed description of siteHost. The tool description adds context (Pro+ requirement, full-site crawl) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. 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 crawls and scans every reachable page of a registered site. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_url (single URL) and get_scan (polling results) by specifying the full-site scope and immediate return with a runId.

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 advises to call list_sites first if the host is unknown, and to use get_run to poll results. This provides clear when-to-use and alternatives, meeting the highest standard for usage guidance.

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