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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description adds useful async-specific behavior: the ~40 second wait and the need to poll again if the status remains running.

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 description is two short sentences with no wasted text. The core instruction is front-loaded, and the polling caveat follows naturally.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description supplies the essential async polling behavior, making this complete for its scope.

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%, so the description must add meaning for the single parameter. It does so by identifying job_id as the value returned from ask_cliniatlas, which is more valuable than repeating the schema pattern.

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 states a specific action (collect the answer) tied to a specific resource (a job_id returned by ask_cliniatlas). It clearly distinguishes this polling/retrieval tool from the initiating sibling ask_cliniatlas.

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 tells the agent to use a job_id returned by ask_cliniatlas and explains the polling pattern: wait roughly 40 seconds, and call again with the same job_id if the status is still running. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or comparison to other retrieval siblings, but the usage context is clear.

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