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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real operational context beyond them: it is plan-gated, takes one to two minutes, and the answer is retrieved as aiFix on get_run. It doesn't say whether the request can be cancelled or re-issued, so it falls short of 5.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the action, then timing/result path, then the alternative. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what triggers it, that it is plan-gated, expected latency, and where to read the result (aiFix on get_run). The absence of an output schema is compensated for.

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?

Only one parameter (runId) and its schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description references 'a run' without adding id format or source hints, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Ask Relvato's AI to suggest a fix' for a run that failed or found a problem, and it anchors to the dashboard feature the user knows. It also explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_fix_prompt, so an agent can pick correctly without opening schemas.

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?

States the trigger (run failed or reported a problem) and names the alternative get_fix_prompt with the condition that selects it (you want the same brief to reason with yourself, without waiting). Explicit when-to-use and when-to-prefer-a-sibling.

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