get_scan_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses all return fields (status, repo, reportUrl, findingsCount), mentions the 404 error case, and provides realistic timeframes. The mention of 'Al-Mizaan-validated' adds context. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured: main action first, then timing, return info, and error handling. Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose for the content. 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 polling tool with no output schema, the description provides all necessary information: what it returns, when to call, and error behavior. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents job_id. The description repeats that it comes from scan_contract but adds no new format or validation details. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('Poll') and resource ('job_id returned by scan_contract'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by referencing scan_contract as the source of the job_id. It leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 timing guidance ('every minute or two'), expected durations (25 min to 24h), and warns against polling faster. It also advises on 404 handling, telling the agent to verify the job_id rather than retry blindly. This is complete usage guidance.

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