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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the two possible return shapes (full result vs {pending: true}), the polling cadence, and the quota exemption ('does not count against the daily limit'). It does not cover error cases or run_id expiry, keeping it short of 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what it does and why it exists, then the return contract. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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 no annotations, the description correctly covers the return contract and the polling loop, which is what an agent needs to call it correctly. Missing only edge-case behavior such as failure results or run_id lifetime.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents run_id (including its format and origin). The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline 3.

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+resource ('Collect the result of an asset_analyze check') and pins its role in the async workflow, making it clearly distinct from the sibling asset_analyze that produces the work. An agent can tell what this does without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition (asset_analyze returned {pending: true, run_id} because it exceeded wait_seconds) and the retry behavior ('call again in about a minute'). It does not name a sibling alternative to avoid, but the conditional context is unambiguous.

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