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

The description discloses a critical side effect: 'Each call may advance the workflow by dispatching steps whose dependencies have completed.' This directly contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation, which claims no state changes. Thus, transparency is undermined by the annotation conflict.

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?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences that pack in purpose, behavior, and polling guidance. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter status polling tool, the description covers the key aspects: what it returns, how to poll, and terminal statuses. An output schema exists to explain return values, so missing step-level details are not critical. However, the side-effect behavior is not fully reconciled with the annotations, slightly reducing completeness.

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?

The schema already covers the only parameter (workflow_id) with a clear description ('Workflow ID returned by submit_workflow'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states 'Get the current status of a workflow and all its steps' with a specific verb and resource scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_job_status by focusing on workflows, and the mention of step statuses adds specificity.

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?

Provides clear polling guidance ('Poll every 5–10 seconds until status is...') which tells when to call repeatedly. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the polling context is clear and actionable.

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