get_scan_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so richly: it distinguishes 'unknown' (unreadable, investigate, NOT a failure) from 'failed' (site reported failure), documents the server's 2-5 s randomized pacing and one-tool-at-a-time execution, and specifies retry limits and the ok=false/error.hint protocol. 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?

Front-loaded with the state enumeration an agent most needs, followed by polling cadence and error handling. It is a dense paragraph with no filler, though the pacing/retry material could be split or bulleted for faster scanning.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail isn't required, and the description still flags that scans_remaining is returned. Combined with the state semantics, timeout rule, retry policy, and the unknown-vs-failed distinction, an agent has everything needed to poll and branch 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 scan_id is accepted and its schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies scan_id identifies the scan being polled ('keep the scan_id') but gives no format, source, or validation detail. This is adequate but thin for the one parameter present.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Poll a scan's state') and enumerates the full set of possible states, so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast against siblings like list_scans or get_scan_feedback, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use rules: poll no more than once every 20 s, give up after 10 minutes, treat timeout as scan_timeout while keeping the scan_id, never call tools in parallel. It also spells out the error.hint routing (auth_expired, site_changed, unknown_state, internal_error, profile_in_use never retried blindly; otherwise at most two retries), which is actionable conditional guidance.

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