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

Annotations already establish this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the bar is lower. The description does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the annotations or schema: the call can return either a next prompt (step is awaiting input) or a result (step is done). It does not say whether the call blocks or must be polled, nor what happens for a step that has not started.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with zero filler; the two possible outcomes are stated immediately. It is a fragment rather than a full sentence, but nothing is wasted and nothing is buried.

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 is the only source documenting return values, and it names the two outcomes without describing their shape or how to act on a returned prompt. For a 2-parameter read tool in a start/get/reply workflow, it is minimally adequate but leaves the agent to infer the polling and reply cycle.

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%, including a detailed explanation of the optional 'store' link formats and the default FactoGraph guide behavior, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning of its own beyond referencing 'a running step', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific capability: retrieving the current position of a running step, specifically its next prompt or its result. That is clear and concrete, but it never contrasts itself with the closely related siblings startStep and replyToPrompt, so an agent must infer the division of labor from names alone.

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?

The phrase 'a running step' implies the usage context (polling an in-progress step), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Nothing tells the agent whether to call this before or after startStep/replyToPrompt, or how often to poll.

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