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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that by explaining the return payload: progress, step results, and the full deliverable when complete. This helps the agent understand what the response will look like over the lifecycle of the workflow.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the key usage instruction. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a single-parameter status tool.

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 the simple one-parameter schema, existing read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the essential points: purpose, return content, and timing relative to rigor_execute. It does not mention failing workflows or error handling, but the output schema likely covers those states, so it is nearly complete.

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 schema already documents the only parameter (workflow_id) with format and source ('returned by rigor_execute (format: wr_xxx)'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no new parameter-level insights but also does not contradict the schema, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Check the status of a running or completed Rigor workflow') and clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rigor_execute and rigor_plan by emphasizing it is the status retrieval tool. It also mentions the key output (progress, step results, full deliverable), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use after rigor_execute with polling delivery to retrieve results.' This gives clear invocation timing relative to a sibling tool. It does not mention exclusions or alternative use cases for the other workflow tools, but the primary integration context is well-defined.

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