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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds rich context: nothing has been charged until this call, the reservation/allowance/launch all happen here, and timeout behavior is described. This goes well beyond annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and state. Information is dense but well-organized, though slightly lengthy for a tool description. Every sentence adds value, but could be marginally tightened.

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?

Complete for the tool's complexity. Given no output schema, it explains return behavior implicitly (run starts), covers timeout, charging, and default behavior. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics: 'Answer by axis, not by position', send 'you_decide' or empty string for undecided, and skip:true accepts all assumptions. These details are not in the schema descriptions and clarify how to use the parameters effectively.

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: 'Answer the clarification questions a run with status "clarifying" is waiting on, and start it.' This is precise and distinguishes it from siblings like start_run or run_status by explaining exactly which state it operates on.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it (only when a run is 'clarifying') and even tells agents that 'most agents never need this tool' because runs default to clarify:"auto". It also explains the alternative (skip vs answer by axis) and what happens on timeout.

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