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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuine behavioral context by framing the resource as an async job that must be polled for completion, implying repeated idempotent calls and possibly incomplete results. It does not describe failure/expiry states or what the returned result payload looks like, so the addition is real but modest.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, purpose stated first and the usage trigger second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only polling getter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and when to call it. It could mention what happens while the job is still running (e.g., status values) but nothing essential to invoking it correctly 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 jobId and customerId are already documented, including that jobId comes from simulate_agent/simulate_ab_test and that customerId is superadmin-only. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (get status/results of an async simulation job) and ties the resource to the two sibling tools that create such jobs. An agent can tell it apart from other status getters like get_agent_status or get_benchmark_status, though the differentiation rests on the referenced simulate_* calls rather than an explicit contrast.

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?

"Use this to poll for completion after calling simulate_agent or simulate_ab_test" gives clear, actionable context for when to invoke it. There is no explicit when-not guidance, but the polling framing is specific enough that an agent knows the trigger condition.

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