start_trust_signals_scan

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

The description discloses async behavior, immediate return of scanId, typical completion time (30-90 seconds), and that it creates a scan record. This adds significant context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), which already indicate mutation and open input.

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 sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and each sentence provides essential information about the action, return value, and typical behavior. No wasted words.

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?

For a single-parameter async start tool, the description covers what it does, how to retrieve results, and expected timing. It lacks mention of error conditions or limits, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?

The input schema has one parameter (domain) with 100% description coverage via the example. The tool description adds context about the analysis but does not further clarify the parameter meaning or format, making it adequate but not outstanding.

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 starts an async trust-signals analysis on any domain, listing specific signal categories. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_trust_signals_scan (polling) and other start_* tools by focusing on trust signals.

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 explains that it returns a scan ID immediately and advises polling with get_trust_signals_scan, giving clear context on the async flow. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternative start_* tools.

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