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

Annotations already declare this is a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that this is a poll target and that waiting-callback counts are tracked, but says nothing about return format or how often to poll.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the return content comes first and the usage timing follows. Slightly awkward phrasing ("whether one is online", "callbacks wait for one") but no wasted text.

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 no output schema and a single well-documented parameter, the description usefully compensates by naming what is returned (connector online status, queued callbacks) atop the safety annotations. Complete enough to call correctly, though it omits any detail about poll cadence or error states.

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?

Only one parameter (run_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 conveys the specific resource (the run's connectors) and the data returned (online state and count of waiting callbacks). It lacks an explicit verb but an agent can infer this is a status query over rig connector state, distinguishing it from rig.connector.prepare and the event tools.

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?

"Poll this after starting ironfang-connect, before triggering the callback" gives a concrete when-to-use condition tied to a specific workflow step. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use case, so it lands just below the top tier.

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