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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description is free to add the genuinely useful trait: the call blocks and waits up to waitSeconds for the run to finish, and the result mirrors ask_zenning's shape. It does not say what happens if the run is still unfinished when the wait expires.

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the two use cases before the timing and return-shape details. Every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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?

All three parameters are documented and the return shape is anchored by reference to ask_zenning, which compensates for the absent output schema. The one real gap is timeout/partial-result behavior, which matters for a polling tool.

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 runId's origin ('from ask_zenning'), the threadId, and the 0-240 waitSeconds range are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that baseline.

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?

Names a specific action on a specific resource ('check on a chat', 'read the latest answer') and ties the tool to ask_zenning via the runId lineage. It is clearly distinct from the launch tool ask_zenning, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the read_thread sibling that also reads chat content.

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 two concrete triggering conditions: polling a chat that 'was still working' and fetching the latest answer. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. read_thread) or stating when-not-to-use, so the routing guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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