scan_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral aspects: asynchronous scanning, default 'unlisted' visibility, privacy implications of public submissions, and the requirement of acknowledge_public_submission for public scans. No contradictions exist.

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 well-structured with clear sections for asynchronous behavior and privacy. It is informative without being overly verbose, though minor trimming could be possible.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (asynchronous, privacy, public flag) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: submission process, retrieval method, visibility options, and the acknowledge flag requirement.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable context for the acknowledge_public_submission parameter, explaining its role in public submissions and the current MVP behavior. The url parameter is sufficiently described in 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?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Submit a URL to urlscan.io for live browser-based scanning') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_url_scan_result, which is mentioned as the retrieval counterpart.

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 this tool submits a URL and returns immediately with a scan_id, and that results should be retrieved with get_url_scan_result after a delay. It explicitly contrasts submission vs. retrieval, though it does not list when not to use the tool.

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