scan criterion suspects

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing billable spend, the exact endpoint and API-key scope, per-type scan limits, quiet periods, pre-flight wallet gates, billing prefixes, adjudication semantics, and maxDuration. Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world behavior; the description supplies the operational details an agent needs.

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 long but every sentence carries operational value: purpose, endpoint, billing, return shape, auth, errors, scan limits, and review lifecycle. The most important scoping and cost warnings are front-loaded, and no filler is present.

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 tool has no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return object shape and zero-case behavior. It also covers auth, workspace constraints, billing, limits, quiet periods, calibration requirements, and error codes, making the tool safely callable by an agent.

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% and the only parameter, id, is already documented as a criterion id belonging to the key's workspace. The description reinforces this with the path and 404 condition, but it does not add substantial parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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: it judges a bounded batch of unlabeled traffic with a criterion and queues FAIL verdicts as pending suspects for human review. It also frames its purpose as the fastest way to grow a judge's failure-label set from live traffic, which clearly distinguishes it from generic scan or review tools.

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?

Provides strong contextual guidance: when to use it (live, unlabeled, unscanned traffic), prerequisites (OWNER/ADMIN, completed calibration for trace-unit criteria), and failure conditions (403, 404, 400, 402). It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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