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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: it waits a few seconds for the next card to finish, and when the run finishes it returns report-card text, figures, a growth chart, and next-run offers.

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 purpose is front-loaded and the Args section is useful, but the main sentence is a long, awkward run-on with repeated card metaphor and unclear phrasing. It is informative rather than bloated, but its structure could be much cleaner.

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?

For a polling/progress tool with no output schema, it explains the in-progress view and the finished-run return content. It leaves minor gaps around error behavior or exact polling cadence, but covers what an agent needs to call it 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 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It documents all three parameters: task_id comes from start_test, seen is the count already shown as run, and now is the currently running card. This compensates fully for the schema gap.

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 states a specific resource and action: progress for the circuit card, showing which circuit cards have run, which is running, and final report details. It is distinguishable from most siblings via the circuit-card and start_test context, though it does not explicitly contrast with run_card_progress or show_report_card.

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 clear invocation context: this is for the circuit card, it is called while a ready test runs, and task_id comes from start_test. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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