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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no contradiction. It enriches the read-only contract by enumerating the returned fields, the full status enum, and the expected next action per status, making clear that this is a safe, repeated polling operation.

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?

Although long, the description is densely informative with no filler. The core purpose and return contract come first, followed by status semantics, action routing, and parameter provenance — each sentence earns its place given the lack of output schema and terse input schema.

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, no enum definitions, and 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden and succeeds: it lists the return object, defines every status value, explains conditional parameter requirements, and gives status-specific follow-ups. Nothing essential for invoking this tool correctly is missing.

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%, so the description must explain the parameters itself. It does: feed_id is defined as 'the id from list_feeds / create_feed', and project_id's optionality is clarified with the single-project vs multi-project inference behavior. This adds real meaning beyond the bare integer 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the runtime status of one feed: generation state, progress, last run/submit and any error.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_feed ('Use get_feed for configuration/mapping and this tool for run progress'), so an agent can choose among the large sibling set without guessing.

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?

It gives direct when-to-use guidance by naming get_feed as the alternative for configuration/mapping and this tool for run progress. It also explains the polling behavior ('processing/pending → keep polling'), error recovery ('error → read errorMessage, fix, export_feed'), and the conditional project_id requirement ('then call list_projects'), leaving little room for misuse.

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