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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, but the description adds context annotations cannot carry: the exact state machine (PENDING/RUNNING/DONE/FAILED), what is reported on success (chunks written) and failure (the error), and the latency expectation that discourages polling. It stops short of describing pagination or retention of run records, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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, each earning its place: what is returned, when to call it (plus the polling warning), and where the key parameter comes from. The return shape is front-loaded ahead of the routing advice.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned status values, the chunk count, and the error field, and it covers a 3-parameter tool whose schema is fully documented. Nothing an agent needs to call 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 in the schema; the description only adds provenance for runId ('the add-documents call returned'). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (the state of one ingestion run) and ties it explicitly to its producer, workbench_kb_add_documents, which separates it from every sibling in the kb family. An agent can identify this as a status-polling tool 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?

Gives explicit triggers ('when the user asks whether their documents are in yet, or before a search that needs them') and an explicit anti-pattern with the reason ('don't poll in a loop; ingestion of a few documents takes under a minute'). It also names the sibling that supplies the required runId.

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