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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds critical context they cannot: the 55-second MCP deadline that motivates the tool, the default and max timeout values, that timed_out indicates the execution is still running, and how to iterate. This is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure the description should carry.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core semantic ('Block ... until terminal status') and then the return payload and usage guidance. Slightly dense but every sentence carries useful information; no filler.

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 3-param, annotation-light tool with no output schema, the description supplies exactly what the agent needs: purpose, timing semantics, return shape ('same document get_execution_details returns plus waited_seconds and timed_out'), and a decision rule for timed_out. Nothing material is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents execution_id, cluster_id, and timeout_seconds. The description repeats the default (45) and max (50) for timeout_seconds, adding only marginal value over the schema, which already states both. Baseline 3 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 states a precise verb (block until terminal), resource (platform execution), and scope (up to timeout_seconds, default 45, max 50), then names its key sibling get_execution_details and clarifies it returns the same document plus two extras. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose distinct from polling siblings.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use it: after a mutating tool returns an operation_id or live_status_hint, call this 'once or twice instead of polling get_execution_details in a tight loop.' It also gives guidance on what to do when timed_out is true (call again, or stop and report last step).

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