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

Annotations already declare this is a safe read (readOnlyHint true, destructiveHint false), and the description adds substantial context beyond that: answers arrive asynchronously with no retries, the polling cadence, the meaning of 'complete' vs 'partial', that 'partial' is permanent for the run, and that resultsReady is the go-signal. This is rich disclosure well above the annotation baseline.

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-loaded with the purpose and efficient overall, but it is a dense run-on paragraph with stacked parentheticals that slightly impede scanning. Every clause does carry meaning, so waste is minimal.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return signals and does so: it defines the 'complete'/'partial' states and flags resultsReady as the fetch go-signal. For a single-parameter async status tool this is complete enough to call correctly.

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% for the single workspaceId parameter, and the schema already explains where to obtain it via list_workspaces. The description adds no further parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 — reading the readiness of a pitch workspace's latest run — which is clearly distinct from siblings like get_workspace, list_workspaces, and rerun_pitch. An agent can identify the tool's role without opening the schema.

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?

Provides concrete operational guidance (poll every 30-60s) and routes the agent when the run is 'partial' by naming the alternative rerun_pitch. It stops short of stating when-not to use it versus other status/workspace tools, so it 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.