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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful context that the operation id comes from an unknown-outcome error, but it never states what the check actually returns (ran / did not run / still running), which is the key behavioral detail for deciding whether to retry.

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, front-loaded with what the tool does and immediately followed by the when-to-use trigger. Zero filler and no repetition of the name 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?

With no output schema, the description bears more of the burden for explaining results, yet it never says what a positive or negative check means for the retry decision. Purpose and invocation are well covered, but the outcome interpretation is left implicit for a tool whose whole value is resolving an ambiguous outcome.

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 67%; deviceId and workSessionId are documented in the schema, while operationId carries only a pattern. The description compensates for that gap by explaining where the operationId comes from (an unknown-outcome error), adding real meaning beyond the schema for the one required parameter.

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 (check) and resource (operation) plus the mechanism: verifying whether an earlier call ran on this computer, keyed by an operation id from an unknown-outcome error. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_work_session or list_process_sessions, though it does not name a sibling to differentiate itself explicitly.

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 a concrete trigger condition: 'Use it before retrying a call whose outcome is unknown.' This tells the agent exactly when to reach for it. It stops short of naming alternative tools or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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