new_scan

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 adds some context: it's a submission tool that waits for results and can raise RuntimeError on failure. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, timeouts, or what 'truncated' means in the return value, leaving gaps for a mutation-like operation.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The Args, Returns, and Raises sections are structured but slightly verbose for a single parameter; every sentence adds value, though it could be more streamlined.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (submission with waiting, potential errors) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic operation and error handling but lacks details on output format beyond 'truncated scan result JSON,' which is vague, and doesn't address sibling tool relationships.

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 description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains that the 'url' parameter is 'URL to submit for scanning,' clarifying its purpose. Since there's only one parameter, the baseline is high, and this extra detail compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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's purpose: 'Submit a URL to urlDNA and wait for the scan result.' It specifies the action (submit and wait) and resource (URL to urlDNA). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fast_check' or 'get_scan', which likely have related scanning functions.

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 'fast_check' or 'get_scan'. It mentions waiting for results, which implies this might be a synchronous or blocking operation, but doesn't clarify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to siblings.

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