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 useful constraint that results pertain only to the 'latest' activation attempt (not historical runs), but says nothing about freshness, polling cadence, or what a 'remediation' status implies is actionable.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource scope front-loaded and zero filler. Slightly dense with undefined jargon ('active-probe', 'real-page'), but no wasted words.

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 carries the burden of describing what is returned, and it only gestures at three status categories without indicating shape, granularity, or how to interpret failure/remediation values. Combined with the missing usage guidance, this leaves meaningful gaps for a journey-status tool.

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 75%: workspaceId and idempotencyKey are both documented in the schema, and outputFormat is a self-evident enum. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is acceptable given the high coverage, so 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and enumerates the resource content: active-probe, real-page, and remediation status for the latest activation attempt. This is far more specific than a tautology, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like run_sulvo_activation_preflight or rollback_sulvo_activation.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the preflight/rollback/submit siblings that occupy adjacent workflow positions. The agent must infer that this is a post-activation polling step purely from the name.

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