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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is an async polling operation returning 'status and results,' but says nothing about polling cadence, terminal states, or whether partial results are returned mid-run.

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 tight sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded and the routing hint to the producing tools follows immediately.

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 no output schema, the description does mention that results accompany status, but it does not enumerate possible status values or terminal states an agent would need to interpret a poll response. Adequate for a simple two-parameter read tool, with a minor interpretive gap.

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 100%, including the origin of jobId and the superadmin-only nature of customerId, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already states; 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 (Get) and resource (status and results of an async simulation job), and explicitly ties itself to the two producing tools simulate_agent and simulate_ab_test, distinguishing it from other status tools like get_agent_status or get_benchmark_status.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use this to poll for completion after calling simulate_agent or simulate_ab_test.' It names the producing tools, but offers no when-not guidance (e.g., no note about how often to poll or what to do if the job never completes).

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