get_scan

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds rich behavioral details: status progression, failure explanation, access level nuances (none/teaser/full), and token usage. No contradiction with annotations.

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 detailed yet efficient, with front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds information, though slightly verbose in access level explanation. Overall well-structured.

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?

No output schema, but the description comprehensively covers return structure fields, status flow, error handling, access levels, and token/campaign scenarios. This is exceptional completeness for a tool with no output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining token's purpose (upgrade teaser to full) and linking scanId to start_scan, providing more context than the schema alone.

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 purpose: 'Poll a scan and, once complete, return its structured results.' It uses specific verbs and resource, and the context of sibling tools (start_scan, unlock_report) helps distinguish it as a polling mechanism.

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 explicitly explains when to use: poll until done or failed, and when to use alternatives like unlock_report for token. It provides polling frequency guidance and clarifies the access level upgrade path.

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