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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotency, but the description adds the run lifecycle states (queued, running, done, partial, failed) and the useful cost fact 'spends nothing', which is not in any structured field.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the result distinction and the no-run_id fallback. Nothing is wasted.

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 read-only status tool with a documented schema and no output schema, the description gives enough to call correctly: what it returns conceptually, the state values, and the fallback behavior. Exact response fields are not described, but that is a minor gap.

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 already 100% and documents run_id's origin, so baseline is 3. The description earns a bump by explaining the meaningful optionality: omitting run_id returns recent runs, which the schema cannot convey.

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 and resource (status/progress of a Wow Keywords run) and explicitly scopes it apart from sibling tools by noting it omits the full result, which distinguishes it from wow_keywords_get and wow_keywords_report.

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?

Clearly explains the call pattern: pass run_id for one run's progress, omit it to get the workspace's recent runs. It implies the alternative (fetch the full result elsewhere) without naming that sibling explicitly.

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