scan_and_wait

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses the submit-poll-summarize behavior and API key requirement, but it does not mention side effects like scan creation or quota consumption, nor does it explain blocking/timeout behavior beyond the default timeout parameter. This is moderate transparency.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome. Every sentence adds value: the action, the usage guidance, and the authentication requirement. No filler.

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 presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, with no annotations and zero parameter description coverage, the description misses important context about optional parameters and side effects. It is adequate for a default workflow but incomplete for full parameter understanding.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only mentions 'URL' and gives no explanation of tags, country, visibility, or timeout_seconds. The defaults in the schema provide some implicit meaning, but the description adds little beyond restating the primary input.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Submit a URL and wait for the finished, summarised result.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting that it handles the full submit, poll, and summarise cycle in one call, unlike separate scan_url or get_scan_result steps.

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?

It explicitly says this is the tool to reach for in most workflows and describes the combined cycle, which gives clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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