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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well in most respects: read-only, deterministic, no network fetching or inference, and asynchronous job semantics (returns a job handle, not the report). It also flags resumability via the report manifest. Missing are details such as whether the call is idempotent or how long a job typically runs.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the read-only and non-fetching constraints come first, followed by the async hand-off. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('No fetching, inference, FAHCE...') assumes familiarity with internal terminology such as FAHCE.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return payloads, and its description of the job/manifest hand-off is a useful complement. However, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema documentation, the absence of parameter meaning and of session prerequisites leaves the definition incomplete for correct invocation.

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% with two required UUID parameters, so the description must compensate -- and it does not. 'your retained session' hints at session_id but never explains it, and request_id is completely unaddressed (likely a correlation or idempotency key, but the agent must guess).

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?

States a specific operation on a specific resource ('deterministic assessment of your retained session') and clarifies the boundary of what it is not (no fetching, inference, approval, payment, certification, or commercial clearance). What 'readiness' concretely means is left implicit, but the agent can still tell this apart from siblings such as get_result or export_offer.

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 routes the agent to the next step -- 'poll get_result for signed readiness JSON... or a resumable report manifest' -- and enumerates what this tool does not do. It stops short of stating prerequisites such as whether a session must first be started via start_session, so the when-to-invoke condition is only partly covered.

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