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

The description goes well beyond the annotations: it reveals async fire-and-forget behavior ('does not block on completion'), irreversibility ('a queued run cannot be un-queued from MCP'), and a rate-limiting caveat for the follow-up tool. No statement contradicts the annotations.

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?

Three sentences deliver the core action, return behavior, irreversibility, and polling guidance with zero filler. The most important information—what the tool does—is front-loaded.

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 an async action with no output schema, this is complete: it describes the immediate return values (agentStatus and receipt id), non-blocking behavior, irreversibility, and the correct way to check progress. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond noting the project must be 'saved' and that the run is 'fresh'; the schema itself already documents projectId and the context parameter extensively.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Enqueue a fresh deterministic analysis run for a saved project.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling read/status tools by stating it returns immediately and does not block on completion, and by explicitly saying it is 'not a status endpoint.'

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?

It gives clear direction on follow-up behavior: 'Re-check with getProjectContext, but no more than once every 15 seconds.' It also tells the agent when not to use this tool for polling ('not a status endpoint') and warns the operation is irreversible, which helps decide whether to call it at all.

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