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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the blocking wait behavior, the polling loop, that it never starts or reruns analysis, and the human-in-the-loop needs_input workflow. These are important operational traits an agent could not infer from the annotations alone.

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 four tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the polling and needs_input behaviors. Every sentence carries useful operational information.

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?

The output schema already describes return values, and the annotations cover safety. The description adds the missing async polling and needs_input workflow context, making the definition complete 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and the single parameter, investigation_id, is not explicitly defined in the description. The phrase 'investigation started with refix_investigate' implies where the ID comes from, but the description does not directly state that investigation_id is the ID returned by refix_investigate or give format details.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: reading the state of an investigation started with refix_investigate. It also explicitly distinguishes this from the sibling start/rerun tool by saying it never starts or reruns analysis.

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 states exactly when to call repeatedly: while queued or running, the call waits up to 25 seconds for a state change, so call it again until it finishes. It also gives explicit handling for the needs_input state, including asking the user and submitting the answer through refix_investigate.

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