get_url_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a read-like fetch ('Get'), but says nothing about whether the scan must be completed first, whether results can be partial, what authentication or account context is needed, or what the response will look like.

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 brief and front-loaded with the action, containing no filler words. However, it is under-specified: at four words it provides only the bare retrieval idea and omits differentiating or behavioral context needed for an agent to select it confidently.

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 simple two-parameter getter, the parameter definitions are present, but there is no output schema and no annotations to fill in expectations about the result shape or prerequisites. The close sibling get_url_scan_har further increases the need for clarifying context that this description does not provide.

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 covers 100% of parameters: scan_id and account_id both have descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline score of 3.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Get URL scan result.' It is not a tautology and conveys the basic retrieval purpose, but it does not distinguish this tool from the closely named sibling get_url_scan_har or explain what a 'URL scan result' contains.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool, when not to use it, or what alternatives might be more appropriate. The presence of get_url_scan_har nearby makes some routing guidance valuable, but none is provided.

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