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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: status only flips when the run ends, nothing is retried, an error field reports the first failing cell with an example format, a foreign runId returns "Notebook run not found.", and permission scope is spelled out.

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 purpose, then the return fields, then behavioral caveats and alternatives — a sensible ordering with little waste. The sentence about fastero_run_notebook returning an in-progress run 'unless the run has said running for over an hour' is dense and slightly harder to parse than the rest.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return contract itself — it enumerates runId, status values, timestamps, durationMs and the error shape. Combined with the not-found behavior and permission note, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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% and each parameter already names its source tool (fastero_run_notebook, fastero_list_projects, fastero_list_notebooks), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only the cross-notebook/project failure behavior, which is a modest increment over structured data.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: checks the progress of a notebook run that fastero_run_notebook started. It explicitly distinguishes itself from fastero_run_notebook (which starts runs) and fastero_read_notebook (which reads cell outputs), so an agent can route between the three without opening schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use (poll a started run), alternatives (fastero_run_notebook to re-run, fastero_read_notebook for outputs once finished), and an edge case (a run 'said running' for over an hour). It also states the access precondition — any project member including viewers can check a run.

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