get_scan_feedback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that partial=true means only badges were readable, that a local backup is written, that the server injects random 2-5 s delays and runs one tool at a time (never parallel), and how ok=false should be handled per error.hint with named non-retryable codes. This is far beyond what the schema conveys.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: content of the result comes first, then partial semantics, honesty rule, pacing, and error handling. Nearly every sentence carries operational information, though the honesty/pacing passages read as cross-tool boilerplate that lengthens the block.

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 read tool with an output schema present, the description still explains the payload shape and adds the safety, pacing, and error-handling context an agent needs. Only the scan_id parameter and how to obtain it go unexplained, a small gap given the simple input.

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 0%, so the description should compensate, yet it never mentions scan_id. It is a single self-evident identifier whose intent is clear from the tool context, so the omission is minor rather than damaging, but it adds no semantic detail over the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource and enumerates exactly what the resource contains (medal, four badges, per-criterion status, action items, ATS keywords), which is precisely what distinguishes it from get_scan_status or list_scans. An agent knows it is the post-completion feedback reader, not a status poller.

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?

Usage is implied (a 'completed scan', and partial=true for a truncated read), but the description never explicitly says when to call this versus get_scan_status, nor names an alternative. The rich error-retry guidance is about failure handling, not tool selection, so routing remains inferred.

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