urlscan_get_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it does not say what happens if the scan is still running, whether results are eventual/polled, or that authentication is required for some scans.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient but too terse to carry the missing usage and parameter context.

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 no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description should explain the UUID source, scan-pending behavior, and the role of api_key. None of that is present, so an agent calling it is guessing at the authentication and readiness model.

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 carries the burden, yet it only implies the uuid meaning via 'by UUID'. The second parameter, api_key, is never explained (authentication requirement, when it is needed versus optional), leaving a real gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the result of a urlscan.io scan') and the lookup key ('by UUID'), which is enough for an agent to know what it retrieves. It does not differentiate from the sibling tools urlscan_search or urlscan_scan, so a caller must infer whether this is the right entry point.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus urlscan_search or urlscan_scan, and no mention that the UUID typically comes from a prior urlscan_scan submission. The agent must infer prerequisites such as the scan having been submitted and possibly needing time to finish.

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