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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, and openWorld=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful operational context beyond that: asynchronous statuses, waitSeconds behavior, credit consumption, and approval handling. It does not explain permissions or exactly what 'destructive' may affect, leaving a minor gap.

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?

Front-loads the core action and wait behavior, then adds only necessary routing and state details. Each sentence earns its place with no redundant restatement of the schema or title.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the important return statuses and what to do for each, plus thread and workspace semantics. For a complex, asynchronous assistant tool with five parameters, this is sufficient 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents message, mode, threadId, waitSeconds, and workspaceId. The description reinforces threadId continuation and waitSeconds/status behavior, but does not add syntax or format meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 ('Send a message to Zenning ... and wait for its answer') and distinguishes the tool from siblings by naming get_chat_result and threadUrl as follow-up paths. An agent can tell it is the primary chat-entry tool.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('anything that needs Zenning's own tools or your connected apps') and names alternatives for edge states: call get_chat_result when status is 'running', open threadUrl when status is 'needs_input'. It also clarifies new-chat vs. continued-chat behavior.

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