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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the performance trait 'Cheap enough to poll' and the internal context 'Used by the Bucky app view', which are useful behavioral notes beyond the annotation flags. No contradiction exists.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the alternative guidance is reported efficiently. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 simple status-poll tool with read-only annotations, the description covers the essential usage and routing. It does not describe the return format or what `agentStatus` contains, but with no output schema and an intuitive tool name, this gap is minor. The explicit pointer to `getProjectContext` strengthens 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?

Schema description coverage is only 50%. The `projectId` parameter has only type/format/pattern, no description, and the description text does not explain it. The `context` parameter is described in the schema, but the description adds no parameter information. Since coverage is below 50%, the description should compensate but does not, leaving `projectId` undocumented in both places.

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 the tool returns only the analysis `agentStatus` for a project. The verb 'Return' is specific, the resource is defined (analysis agentStatus), and it explicitly distinguishes itself from `getProjectContext` by saying the model should use that instead for a broader context. No ambiguity remains.

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?

The description provides explicit usage context: it is 'Cheap enough to poll' and 'Used by the Bucky app view', then directly instructs to call `getProjectContext` instead when more context is needed. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance, naming the alternative tool.

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