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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that the task is asynchronous ('Queues'), requires authentication ('authenticated'), and has cost implications ('can consume paid model capacity'). It also reveals the lifecycle behavior by routing to polling and result tools. No contradiction with annotations — the mutation/async nature aligns with readOnlyHint=false. It doesn't cover failure modes or rate limits, but the annotation bar is satisfied.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the cost warning, and the follow-up workflow. The most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

The tool is simple (3 fully documented params) and the workflow chain is stated, but there is no output schema and the description never says what the create call returns (e.g., a run ID to pass to agentfarm_get_run_status). An agent must infer the response shape to chain the lifecycle correctly. Cost and async caveats are covered, but the missing return-value semantics is a real gap.

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% — all three parameters (task, task_input, idempotency_key) already have meaningful descriptions in the schema, including the idempotency behavior of idempotency_key ('the same key and input return the original run'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level detail, placing it at the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 uses a specific verb ('Queues') with a clear resource ('authenticated asynchronous task'), and the title anchors it as 'Create a GPT-5.6-luna Agent run.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the downstream workflow (agentfarm_get_run_status, agentfarm_get_run_result), making it unambiguous that this is the creation step rather than a status or result read.

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?

The description gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Poll with agentfarm_get_run_status, then read agentfarm_get_run_result,' telling an agent exactly which sibling tools follow this one. The cost warning ('This can consume paid model capacity') implies agents should invoke cautiously. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use conditions or mention of the cancel/agent-info siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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