get_scan_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'get' operation (implying read-only), but doesn't clarify what 'consolidated keyword results' means, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The description is too vague about the actual behavior beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more context given the lack of annotations and output schema.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools that provide similar scan-related information, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'consolidated keyword results' means, how they differ from other scan data, what format they come in, or provide enough context to distinguish this from other scan-related tools. The description leaves too many open questions for effective tool selection.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'scan_run_id' clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides - it doesn't explain what format the ID should be, where to obtain it, or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Get consolidated keyword results') and the resource ('for a scan run'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_scan_run' or 'list_scan_runs', which likely provide different types of scan-related information.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_scan_run' or 'list_scan_runs'. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a completed scan run), context for when consolidated keyword results are needed, or exclusions for when other tools might be more appropriate.

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