urlscan_scan

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose whether scanning is synchronous, if it returns immediately with a scan ID, or any rate limits or authentication requirements. The description is too minimal.

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 a single sentence, making it concise but at the expense of necessary detail. For a tool with three parameters and no output schema, it is too brief to be effective.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return values, whether the operation is blocking, or authentication needs. More context is required.

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 33% (only 'visibility' has a description). The tool description adds no parameter-level information; it fails to explain the purpose of 'url' or 'api_key'. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 action: submitting a URL for scanning on urlscan.io. It uses a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('URL for scanning'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like urlscan_get_result and urlscan_search.

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 tool versus alternatives (e.g., urlscan_get_result for retrieving results). No prerequisites or context for using the tool are provided.

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