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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely behavioral context beyond them: this is a polling tool, its terminal states, and the concurrency rule against overlapping runs. It doesn't discuss polling cadence or rate limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 filler: purpose first, then the operational rule, then the return payload. Every sentence earns its place and the most actionable content (polling and the no-second-run rule) is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still enumerates the key returned fields as a convenience, and it fully specifies the polling lifecycle and concurrency constraint. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this 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 description coverage is 100%, so both required parameters (run_id, workflow_id) are already documented in the schema, including provenance and the 'never invent one' warning. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('how far a run has got'), and the returned field list (status, finished_steps, total_steps) makes the progress-monitoring purpose concrete. It is clear but doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the nearest sibling, get_run_outputs, so it stops short of a 5.

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 names the exact trigger ('Poll this after run_workflow'), the terminal conditions that end polling (completed, failed, cancelled), and an explicit prohibition ('do not start a second run while one is in flight'). That is when-to-use, when-to-stop, and a negative constraint in two sentences.

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