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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond that, such as the ability to request multiple steps in one call, the bot-type-shaped nature of parts, and the error behavior when requesting a part with no source available.

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?

The description is a focused four-sentence paragraph with the main purpose front-loaded and no redundant filler. The phrase 'bot-type-shaped' is somewhat cryptic and could obscure the meaning, but overall the structure is efficient and every sentence contributes.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, common usage patterns, and important error behavior. It does not fully explain 'bot-type-shaped' parts or exhaustively cover all parameters, but the schema fills those gaps and the description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 80%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds meaning by explaining the parts payload conceptually and by illustrating that stepIndexes can combine dependent steps, such as a failing request and the step that captured a token, in a single call.

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 names a specific action and resource: it reads the payloads get_play_status leaves out, such as response bodies, headers, captured values, console messages, network activity, HTML, and logs, for one or more steps of a play. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_play_status by describing what this tool adds beyond that sibling.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: when you need detail beyond get_play_status, and it explicitly recommends using this instead of adding a validator or code block to echo a response. It does not explicitly state when to prefer get_play_status or other alternatives, so the guidance is strong but not fully exclusionary.

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