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

Annotations lack behavioral details (only readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). Description adds critical behavioral traits: sync/async pipeline, timeout handling, and return format {status:pending, job_id}. No contradiction with 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, front-loaded with core action. Every sentence serves a purpose: define tool, explain sync/async, emphasize thread requirement. No redundant or verbose phrasing.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers overall behavior, sync/async, and threading. Could briefly describe what 'Full pipeline' entails, but the essential context for using the tool is present. Minor gap in explaining default behavior if deadline_seconds not set.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline 3. Description adds some context like 'Pass a stable thread id (UUID)' but largely repeats schema descriptions (e.g., role override, thread alias). Does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond 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?

Description starts with 'Ask the agent' which clearly states the action and resource. It elaborates with 'Full pipeline (schema, queries, analysis)' and differentiates from sibling tools (help, read_response, request_status) by mentioning sync/async behavior and polling mechanism.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use synchronous vs asynchronous mode based on deadline_seconds, and instructs to poll request_status/read_response for pending jobs. Also specifies to pass a stable thread id for conversation context.

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