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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful qualifier 'owned' (authorization scoping) and the polling-implies-repeatability behavior, but says nothing about what an in-progress or failed run returns or whether the call blocks.

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 sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead and the payload enumeration trails. It could be trimmed slightly, but every clause conveys a real capability.

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 seven parameters (zero required), the description should have closed the gap on run identification and polling cadence, and it does not. It does at least scope the result set to owned runs and name the result categories, which is the minimum an agent needs to decide to call it.

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 71%, but the two undocumented parameters are run_id and automation_id — precisely the identifiers needed to fetch a single run — and the description gives no hint how to identify the run or whether either is required (required list is empty). The remaining params (uid, bearer_token, conversation_id, preferences_mode, agent_preferences) are documented in the schema, so the description adds nothing.

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 (poll) and resource (one owned automation run) and enumerates what the caller learns: status, progress, errors, delivery state, trend results. That separates it from list_automation_runs, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_run_status, leaving a real ambiguity unresolved.

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 word 'poll' implies repeated use after kicking off a run, which is useful implied guidance, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_run_status or list_automation_runs, and no note about when a run is finished. Usage must be inferred.

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