get_agent_adoption_scan

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits beyond annotations: special handling for bot-protected targets, neutral scoring, and a counter rename from n8nCalls. No contradiction with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations.

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 concise with five sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, runtime behavior, exception details, counter rename, and polling recommendation. It is front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 tool's complexity (multiple states, exception handling, counter rename), the description covers all necessary context without an output schema. It explains what the tool returns and how to use it effectively.

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?

The input schema fully describes scanId (pattern, description). The description adds useful context that scanId comes from start_agent_adoption_scan, linking the tools and clarifying origin. With 100% schema coverage, this additional context elevates the score above baseline.

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 retrieves status or full results of an Agent-Adoption Check by scanId. It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and identifies the resource, differentiating from sibling tools like get_ai_visibility_check_detail or start_agent_adoption_scan.

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 provides explicit context for usage: it returns status while running and complete results when finished, and recommends a polling interval of 5-10 seconds. It implies when to use (after starting a scan) but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios.

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