check_scan_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses polling behavior, pending status return, pricing (free with paid scan), and return structure (verdict, engine votes, pending). Lacks rate limit or timeout details but still good coverage.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, usage, return value, and pricing. Front-loaded with key information, no fluff.

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?

With one simple parameter, no output schema, and rich description covering when to call, how often, what to expect in response, and pricing, the description is complete.

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% for the one parameter. The description adds 'returned by scan_url or scan_file' which mirrors the schema description. No additional meaning beyond schema, meeting baseline for high coverage.

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 polls for scan results (verb 'poll') and specifies the resource 'result of a previously submitted URL or file scan'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_url and scan_file which submit scans.

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 explicit instruction to call every 5 seconds after scan_url or scan_file until status is 'completed'. Does not explicitly list alternatives but given the sibling tools, the context is clear.

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