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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real context: no new execution or polling fee, a possible settlement of the original charge, and that REST ownership/access controls apply. That cost and access-control disclosure is exactly the kind of thing annotations cannot convey.

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 short sentences, all load-bearing: purpose, cost/ownership caveat, and trigger. Front-loaded with the action and resource; the only mild drag is the vague phrase "through REST ownership and access controls."

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 single-parameter read/settle tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, trigger, cost, and access prerequisites. The main omission is any hint of what the response contains (e.g., run status), though no output schema exists to lean on.

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% for the single run_id parameter, so the schema contributes nothing. The description references run_id and implies its provenance (obtained from run_tool's pending result), which is modest value, but it gives no format, length, or lookup guidance.

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 verb pair (check/settle) and resource (an existing run) keyed by run_id, which clearly separates it from run_tool's execution-starting role. The term "settle" is domain jargon that an agent must infer means finalizing status/billing rather than mutating the run, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

"Use after run_tool reports pending" gives an explicit trigger and names the sibling tool that precedes it, which is strong routing guidance. It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., after a run completes or fails), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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