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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses asynchronous background execution, a global single-job constraint, an admission throttle of one new job per 5 seconds, and that accepted/busy/rate_limited are not completion states. This is exactly the non-obvious runtime behavior an agent would otherwise have to discover by failing.

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 English text is dense, front-loaded, and every clause earns its place (submission action, completion caveat, concurrency limit, throttle, retry rule). The full Chinese restatement roughly doubles the length without adding new information for a single-language reader, which is the only waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers submission, admission gating, and polling. It leaves unstated where module_id values come from (list_modules) and what the params override object actually supports, which matters for a tool with a free-form params bag.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including request_id's UUID and no-auto-regeneration rule. The description reinforces request_id idempotency ("retry the same ID") but adds no new syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema states, so the baseline applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Submit one TSV dataset") plus the mode of execution ("serial background plotting"), which is far more than the bare name conveys. It also names the sibling to use afterwards (get_result), so the agent can place this tool relative to get_result/get_module_schema without opening a 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?

Gives explicit follow-up routing ("accepted is not completion; poll get_result") and explicit retry semantics for the busy/rate_limited outcomes ("wait and retry the same ID"). It does not cover prerequisites such as obtaining a valid module_id from list_modules or previewing inputs via get_module_demo, so a small gap remains.

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