start_tech_stack_scan

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the behaviors an agent actually needs — non-blocking execution, immediate scanId return, the required follow-up poll, and a realistic completion latency. The write-ish, network-scoped nature of the tool is consistent with the annotations, and no relevant trait is left unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the return/poll contract, then timing — a sensible order with no filler. The '117 detection rules across tech stack / growth stack / engagement stack' enumeration is somewhat expansive for a single-parameter tool, but it does convey scanning scope.

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 no output schema, the description carries the full burden of the return contract and does so: it names the scanId and the polling tool. Combined with the latency estimate and detection scope, an agent has everything needed to call and follow up correctly.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100% (the schema already supplies the 'example.com' format hint). The description's 'any domain' phrasing aligns with the schema but adds no format, normalization, or validation detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 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?

States a precise verb and resource ('Start an async tech-stack detection on any domain') and immediately scopes what is detected (tech/growth/engagement stacks). It also names the companion tool to poll with (`get_tech_stack_scan`), letting an agent separate it from start_trust_signals_scan and start_agent_adoption_scan without opening a schema.

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 tells the agent the call is asynchronous, that it returns a scanId immediately, and that polling should be done via `get_tech_stack_scan`, with an expected 30-90s completion window. It does not discuss when to prefer this scan over sibling scans (trust signals, agent adoption), but the context for correct invocation is otherwise unambiguous.

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