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

The description adds behavior beyond the annotations by disclosing the asynchronous contract ("return immediately", "the run continues after this returns") and the non-obvious rule that a paused action can still be started. It stops short of warning that the annotations mark this as destructive and open-world, so the agent gets no signal about side effects outside ProductNow.

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?

Six short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and the async behavior, then prerequisites, then parameter edge cases. Nothing is padded and each sentence carries a distinct instruction.

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, so return values need not be described, and the async and paused-action semantics fill the main behavioral gap. Slightly incomplete because it never mentions failure modes, retry behavior, or the destructive side effects flagged in annotations.

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 the schema already explains actionId provenance and the null/empty-object rules for runtimeInput. The description restates those same null-versus-object rules with no added syntax, format, or example, so this is baseline territory.

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?

"Start an installed ProductNow action and return immediately" names a specific verb and resource, and the immediate-return qualifier instantly separates it from siblings like list_actions or get_status. An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 explicitly requires calling list_actions first to obtain the actionId, which is the key prerequisite. It does not, however, state when an agent should avoid this tool or what the alternatives are for monitoring or retrying a run.

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