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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds value by explaining the polling pattern and when to include the result payload, aligning with annotations without contradiction.

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 concise with two front-loaded sentences. Each sentence provides essential information without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool's low complexity, good schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers main purpose, polling usage, and result inclusion. Minor improvements could include explicit differentiation from sibling tools for result retrieval.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description rephrases the guidance for include_result but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema descriptions provide.

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 clearly states it reads status and optional full result for a persisted direct-URL Content Intelligence run. The verb 'Read' and resource 'status and optional full result' are specific, and the mention of 'Content Intelligence run' helps distinguish from similar sibling tools like get_sleepwalker_visibility_run_status.

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 provides implicit guidance by indicating to poll while queued or running and to set include_result only after completion. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_sleepwalker_run_result or state when not to use this tool.

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