get_trust_signals_scan

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

Description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: explains behavior while running, when complete, and the special case where signalsAvailable is false, including placeholder values. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and description reinforces 'Read-only.' with no contradiction.

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?

Description is front-loaded with main purpose and efficiently uses sentences to convey critical details. Slightly lengthy due to special case explanation, but every sentence adds value. Could be more streamlined.

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 output schema, description thoroughly explains output format (status, verdicts, signalsAvailable case, placeholder values) and provides polling guidance. Combined with annotations, it is fully informative for a one-parameter read-only tool.

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 has 100% coverage with description for scanId stating 'Scan ID (from start_trust_signals_scan).' The tool description mentions scanId but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema, so baseline applies.

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?

Description clearly states 'Retrieve status or full results of a trust-signals scan by scanId.' It specifies the resource (trust-signals scan) and action (retrieve), and distinguishes from siblings by detailing output like per-signal verdicts and tier verdict, plus a special case for behavioral protection.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'always check signalsAvailable first' and recommends a poll interval of 5-10 seconds. Implies usage after starting a scan, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools.

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