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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive semantics, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by enumerating the stage progression, error_code taxonomy, and expected completion time, which is useful operational context; it omits any note on staleness or whether repeated polling is expected.

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?

Purpose and returned fields are front-loaded in one dense sentence, with the timing note as a useful standalone closing sentence. Slightly over-stuffed mid-sentence with the long error_code enumeration, but no filler.

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 return-value burden and does so thoroughly for a single-parameter tool: status values, per-stage detail, failure codes, and timing. Only a polling-cadence or staleness hint 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 coverage is 0% and the description never describes talk_id either, so neither source documents the parameter. The name is self-evident as the identifier of the talk, which keeps this at a baseline 3 rather than lower, but the description does nothing to compensate for the gap.

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?

A specific verb and resource and an explicit universe of returned fields, tied back to aitho_create_talk. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling aitho_get_talk, so an agent must still infer which of the two to call for general talk data versus ingest progress.

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?

Usage is implied by 'of a talk created with aitho_create_talk' and the timing note hints at polling, but there is no explicit instruction to poll repeatedly, no when-not-to-use, and no routing advice against aitho_get_talk. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer the call pattern.

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