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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral content beyond that: the response contains progress and step results, and the full deliverable appears only once complete — telling the agent polling may need to repeat until terminal.

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: what it does, what it returns, and when to call it, in that order. No redundancy, no restating the title, and the most decision-relevant information comes first.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the payload shape and the calling context, which is the hard part. It omits edge behavior such as what is returned for an unknown workflow_id or how terminal states are signaled, which would be the remaining useful detail.

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% and the single parameter already documents its origin and format ('wr_xxx'). The description adds nothing about workflow_id semantics, so baseline 3 applies — the schema carries the load and the description neither helps nor harms.

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 ('Check the status of a running or completed Rigor workflow') and immediately scopes it to both in-progress and finished workflows. It also separates itself from rigor_execute by describing the retrieval role rather than the execution role, and the return payload (progress, step results, deliverable) confirms the tool's identity.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use after rigor_execute with polling delivery to retrieve results,' which tells an agent exactly which sibling precedes it and under what delivery mode. It does not state when not to use it (e.g., non-polling delivery modes, or using rigor_workflows to list rather than inspect), so a small amount of routing judgment is left to the agent.

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