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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds useful behavior — that it performs no provider polling, starts no work, and that state-changing steps are browser-only. It stops short of describing the returned status payload or how long runs may take to appear.

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?

Three short sentences, zero padding: trigger first, read-only/no-side-effect guarantee second, scope exclusions third. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 must convey what a caller receives; it says only 'returns the latest run or a specific run_id' without describing the status/progress fields or what a not-yet-started run looks like. Input side is fully covered, so the gap is on the return-value side only.

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 both parameters are already documented, including run_id being optional and space_id requiring list-spaces resolution. The description reinforces run_id's meaning ('latest run or a specific run_id') but adds no format, range, or ownership details beyond the schema. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — retrieving progress or results of a documentation update review in an existing Space — and explicitly bounds what it is not ('without polling providers or starting work'). An agent can separate it from start-documentation-update and inspect-documentation-update without opening the schema.

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 gives a concrete trigger ('Use this when the user wants progress or results') and rules out adjacent flows ('Change decisions, resume and end remain browser flows'). It does not name the closest sibling tools (start-documentation-update, inspect-documentation-update) by name, so the routing is inferred rather than explicit.

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