urlscan_scan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only says 'submit for scanning'. It does not disclose scanning duration, impact on the URL, rate limits, or response behavior (e.g., whether it returns immediately or asynchronously).

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 of 7 words, which is very concise. While clear, it could benefit from slightly more structure, such as mentioning the required parameter.

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?

The description is insufficient for a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It does not explain return values, usage of api_key, or the meaning of visibility options beyond what the schema provides.

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 low (33%), and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The 'visibility' parameter is already documented in the schema, while 'url' and 'api_key' have no description in either place.

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 (submit a URL) and the service (urlscan.io), which is specific and distinguishable 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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., urlscan_get_result to retrieve results). There is no mention of prerequisites or typical workflows.

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