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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only/idempotent profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds meaningful context: this is a polling call, returns step-by-step progress, surfaces the run's definition_sha fingerprint, and requires authentication. That is substantive behavioral detail beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences with the primary purpose and the key usage condition front-loaded, followed by the extra return signal. Every clause (definition_sha, auth requirement) carries actionable information with no filler.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description is not obligated to enumerate return values, and it already flags the notable definition_sha field. For a single-parameter polling tool this is nearly complete; only explicit alternative-tool routing is absent.

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 100% and the single session_id parameter is fully documented in the schema as the ID returned by run_workflow. The description adds no further syntax or format detail for the parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline 3 applies.

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 verb ('poll'), the exact resource ('a previously started workflow run'), and the payload ('step-by-step status and output'). It also distinguishes itself from run_workflow and plan_workflow by referencing them, so an agent can separate it from the many workflow siblings.

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 a concrete when-to-use signal: 'useful when run_workflow timed out or is awaiting a checkpoint.' That condition clearly routes the agent to polling over re-running. It stops short of naming the sibling alternatives (e.g. advance_workflow, retry_workflow) as explicit substitutes, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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