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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-structured context: the exact status values, that chunks-written and failure errors are surfaced, and expected latency. It stops short of describing ordering or how long terminal results persist, but adds real value beyond the annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then when to call it, then the parameter. No filler and every clause carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields. For a read-only status-check tool with fully documented parameters, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 kbId, runId and workspace are already documented, including the workspace-token caveat. The description only reinforces runId's provenance ('the runId the add-documents call returned'), adding minimal meaning beyond the schema — the baseline 3 holds.

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 resource ('the state of one ingestion run') and enumerates the exact return values (PENDING / RUNNING / DONE / FAILED, chunks written, error). It explicitly names the sibling that creates the run (workbench_kb_add_documents), so an agent can place it correctly among the workbench_kb_* tools.

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 triggers ('when the user asks whether their documents are in yet, or before a search that needs them') plus a clear exclusion ('don't poll in a loop'), with the reason and timing expectation (under a minute). It also tells the agent where the runId comes from.

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