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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it enumerates the complete state machine with semantic meaning for each state, marks which states are terminal, and prescribes the recovery action per state. This is behavioral context an agent could not get from the schema or 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the return token, then the state glossary, then the polling instruction. Dense but every clause is informative; the only mild redundancy is restating return values that an output schema already declares, though the semantic annotations on each state still earn their place.

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 one-parameter status tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything needed to interpret and act on the result, including the state transitions and next-step routing. Nothing required for correct invocation or interpretation 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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions managed_app_id — not its expected format, nor where to obtain it (e.g. list_apps). The single required integer parameter is largely self-describing by name, which keeps this from being a severe gap, but the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 (check) and resource (managed status of an application) and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_app_details, get_app_logs and get_app by returning only a status token rather than config or logs. An agent can route to it 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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance for edge states: restart with start_app when Stopped, check get_app_logs then restart when Unknown, and poll Queued/Created until Running or terminal. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement (e.g. use get_app_details for full config), so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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