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

The description discloses the blocking/wait behavior, the repeat-call pattern, and the error-handling strategy—all beyond what the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) provide. It also references external documentation for the output shape, clarifying what will be returned. These are meaningful additions that help an agent predict the tool's runtime behavior accurately.

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?

The description is dense but efficient: it front-loads the primary purpose, then systematically covers wait semantics, polling instructions, error recovery, and output documentation. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. The structure makes critical usage rules immediately visible.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema (so return values need not be explained) and a complex set of behaviors (waiting, polling, error recovery), the description covers all essential aspects: the state transition pattern, the need for consistent workspaceId/environment, and the guidance to re-fetch targets on auth errors. It even points to external docs for the full response format, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides detailed descriptions for all six parameters, including the meaning of 'wait' and 'waitSeconds'. The description adds little about individual parameters; it reiterates the wait:true behavior (already in the schema) and frames the repeat-call pattern, which is more usage guidance than parameter semantics. With 100% schema coverage, this is an adequate but not exceptional score.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get the state and output of a classify run.' It further specifies the exact use cases ('resume a running run or inspect a failed one'), which distinguishes it from sibling operations like cancel or delete. The phrase 'classify group' adds specificity about the resource type.

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 gives explicit usage instructions: it explains the polling pattern ('While status is "running", call again with wait: true...until it is terminal'), and the error-recovery step ('On UNAUTHORIZED or NOT_FOUND, re-call get_me'). It also warns against re-submitting the document, preventing a common mistake. These are concrete, actionable guidelines that clearly separate when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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