get_scan_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does well: it discloses the polling behavior for incomplete scans (a key behavioral trait), implies it's a read operation (retrieves results), and mentions the dependency on audit_url. It doesn't cover error cases or rate limits, but provides essential context.

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 with zero waste: the first states purpose and prerequisites, the second provides critical behavioral guidance (polling). It's front-loaded with the core function and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well: it explains the tool's purpose, usage context, and polling behavior. It could mention what the results look like or error handling, but for a simple retrieval tool with good schema coverage, it's mostly complete.

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%, so the schema already documents the token parameter fully. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no format details or examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Retrieve the results') and resource ('previously submitted scan'), and distinguishes from siblings by specifying it uses the token from audit_url (vs. get_public_result which likely doesn't require a token). It explicitly mentions the polling behavior for incomplete scans.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use ('using the scan token returned by audit_url') and when to retry ('If the scan is still running, poll again after a few seconds'). It implicitly contrasts with audit_url (which submits scans) and get_public_result (which likely retrieves public results without a token).

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