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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false and the description is fully consistent with them, while adding substantial context annotations cannot carry: the return field layout, terminal outcomes (finished / NOT started with reason / stream error / no active run), the full run_status enum, and the HTTP 402 insufficient-credits failure mode.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and usage before the return-value detail, and every sentence carries information. The run_status enum listing is dense but operationally useful; the block is longer than minimal but has no filler.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description documents the actual returned fields and terminal result lines, plus the failure case. For a read-only progress probe with one param, nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it is missing.

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 100% for the single project_id param, so baseline is 3. The description goes further by explaining the semantics — 'no session key needed: the project id retrieves the session holding the latest edit' — which tells the agent why one id is sufficient and where the session key comes from.

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 ('check the latest AI edit progress for a project') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by naming dreamagent_get_project_status and dreamagent_get_chat_status with their respective scopes. An agent can route correctly without opening any 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 when to use (edit finished? session key unavailable? before starting a new edit) and when NOT to act ('If edit_active is true, do NOT launch another edit for the same project'). Alternative tools are named with their differing semantics.

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