Check scan progress

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior beyond them: the error condition for an unknown report ID, the fact that it is free and consumes no credit, and rate-limit-adjacent polling guidance. These are operational traits an agent cannot infer from the 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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with purpose and return values before usage conditions and the sibling redirect. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be dropped without losing a distinct fact.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so fully (status enum, progress percentage, suggested next tool). Combined with error behavior and cost disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 100% for the single report_id parameter, so the schema already carries the syntax. The description restates the provenance (returned by analyze_website) and adds the unknown-ID error behavior, but no format or constraint detail beyond the schema — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('check the progress of one page scan by report ID') and enumerates the possible statuses (queued, processing, complete, failed) plus what else comes back. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the whole-site sibling by naming get_fix_plan as the alternative.

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?

Gives concrete triggers ('when analyze_website returned a report ID before the scan finished, or after you started a scan with wait=false'), an explicit alternative for a different scenario (start_site_analysis → get_fix_plan), and a polling cadence instruction ('every few seconds, not in a tight loop'). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative coverage the dimension asks for.

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