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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), yet the description still adds non-obvious behavior: no execution-quota consumption, no work dispatched, recovery diagnostics surfaced for rejected/unknown children, and a conditional auth requirement (devices:read). The devices:read clause is somewhat terse, keeping this from a 5.

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, front-loaded with the use case, then the non-effects, then the edge-case behavior. No filler or restatement of the title. The final sentence is dense with jargon but each clause carries distinct information.

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 and a single parameter, the description carries the load well: it covers purpose, non-effects, quota, auth, and diagnostics for rejected/unknown children. It never characterizes the returned state shape, which would be the remaining gap for a status-reporting tool.

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 parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the schema supplies type/format/pattern but no meaning for operationId. The description implies the value is an operation the authenticated grant owns, which slightly helps an agent know where to obtain it, but it never explains or names the parameter itself.

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 verb+resource ('current state of an operation') and adds a real scope qualifier ('already owned by the authenticated grant'). It does not name a sibling, so an agent must infer the split from operation_output and operation_cancel rather than being told, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 a concrete trigger ('when the user needs the current state of an operation') and negative constraints that route the agent away from the wrong tool ('does not dispatch work', 'no repair or replay is performed'). It stops short of explicitly naming operation_output/operation_cancel as the alternatives for output retrieval or cancellation.

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