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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that with a concurrency/retry discipline rule about pending or executing states, which the agent cannot infer from annotations. It does not say what status values exist or what happens if the call_id is unknown or the call was terminated.

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?

Two sentences, both load-bearing: one defines the read, one states the retry prohibition. The scope condition is front-loaded and there is 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 arguably should hint at what is returned (status values versus final result shape), which it only gestures at. Everything else an agent needs to call it correctly, including the guard against duplicate side effects, is present.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry meaning. It does explain that the call_id is the running call identifier returned by an earlier remote tool call, which is more than the bare uuid format schema, but it adds no format, lifetime, or error behavior for the id.

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: read the status or final result of a Remote MCP tool call, scoped to calls that returned a running call_id. This is clearly not write_file or list_remote_tool_calls. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for polling or listing calls, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 a concrete triggering condition ("a Remote MCP tool call that returned a running call_id") plus an explicit prohibition: do not retry the original side-effecting tool while its status is pending or executing. No sibling alternative (e.g. list_remote_tool_calls) is named for discovery, so guidance 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.