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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the 'owner-scoped' scoping detail and 'asynchronous' nature, which provides useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions; the description aligns well with the hints.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the purpose precisely and includes the key scoping qualifier without wasting words.

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 status-check tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could hint at return value (e.g., status progress or completion) but given the annotations and sibling set, the agent can infer when to call it. The 'owner-scoped' qualifier adds important context.

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 description coverage is 50%: job_id has a clear description referencing batch_scan_start, while format has an enum but no description. The tool description itself does not explain any parameters, so it does not compensate for the missing format description. However, the enum (full/compact) is self-explanatory, so the schema is mostly sufficient.

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 (read), the resource (status of an asynchronous batch scan), and the scope (owner-scoped). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like batch_scan_start (which initiates) and batch_scan_findings (which retrieves results).

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 implies usage after starting a batch scan but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like batch_scan_segment or batch_scan_findings. There is no mention of prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the context implied rather than stated.

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