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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses a rate limit (10s minimum interval), the fact that a 'note' field signals test completion, and the polling lifecycle (stop polling when finished). These are operational traits an agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose followed by usage, rate limit, and termination guidance, all of which earn their place. The long enumeration of returned metrics is informative but heavy, slightly overlapping with the output 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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value explanation is partly redundant, but the description still covers purpose, cadence, termination, and the handoff to get_load_test_report. Only projectId semantics remain unaddressed, a minor gap for an ID parameter.

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 coverage is 50%: loadTestId is documented as coming from list_load_tests, while projectId is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, which is the baseline-3 case at this coverage level, though the parameters are simple identifiers.

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 verb and resource ('Get a Load Test's live status') and enumerates exactly what is returned: stage, elapsed time, bot counts per Population, percentiles, throughput, errors, engine region/online state/CPU. It is clearly distinguishable from get_load_test_report (final report) and get_load_test_url_timings, which it explicitly contrasts.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('tell the user how a test in progress is going', 'tell an overloaded engine from a slow target'), explicit when-to-stop ('once the test is over... stop polling'), and names the alternative action ('read the Test Report with get_load_test_report'). It also specifies a concrete polling cadence of no more often than every 10 seconds.

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