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

Annotations already establish readOnly/non-destructive/non-open behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: the tool returns spend and the run's own analysis, and it carries an important reporting caveat that synthetic answers are never real people. That caveat is not encoded anywhere in the structured fields.

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, front-loaded with the payload, then the routing rule, then the caveat. No filler and each sentence carries distinct information, though the panelRunId/runId naming shift is slightly jarring.

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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, listing the returned contents (status, progress, spend, analysis) is helpful, and annotations cover the safety profile. The gap is the undocumented runId parameter, which leaves the caller unsure what identifier format to supply.

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 only 50%: the documented 'workspace' param is fine, but 'runId' has no description in the schema and the description does not explain it either. The only identifier mention is 'panelRunId' passed to a different tool, which does not clarify this tool's own required parameter.

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?

The description enumerates what the tool surfaces about a panel run (status, progress, spend, its own analysis), which makes the resource and payload clear even without an explicit verb. It partially differentiates from siblings by routing numeric results to prism_studies_results, but does not distinguish it from prism_panels_get or prism_panel_runs_estimate.

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?

It gives one concrete routing rule ('For the numbers, call prism_studies_results with panelRunId'), which is a genuine when-to-use alternative. However it says nothing about when to prefer this over prism_panel_runs_estimate, prism_panel_runs_cancel, or prism_panels_get, so usage is only partially covered.

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