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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds two useful traits beyond that: the run is 'durable' and resuming consumes an 'additional call allowance', implying a quota cost and an async follow-up. It does not explain what happens if the run already completed or whether the allowance is consumed immediately.

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?

Two short sentences, nothing redundant, with the action and its precondition front-loaded before the follow-up polling 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 no explanation, and the description correctly covers the async polling loop via get_research_analysis. The remaining gap is minor: no note on cost/quota implications of the additional allowance or on failure modes when the run cannot be resumed.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it only partially does: 'additional call allowance' hints at the additional_calls parameter but gives no units, range, or default, and run_id's requirement to reference a paused run is only implied by the word 'resume'. organization_id is fully documented in the schema, so that part is covered.

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 ('resume ... durable analysis run') plus the distinguishing condition ('paused or partial'), which separates it from start_research_analysis and cancel_research_analysis. It never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 a clear precondition (run must be paused or partial) and explicitly routes the agent to get_research_analysis for retrieving the result, which is the key follow-up decision. It stops short of stating when-not to use it (e.g., against a completed or failed run) or why resume beats starting a new analysis.

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