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

Goes well beyond the annotations (which only declare it is a safe idempotent read) by disclosing latency expectations, a recommended polling cadence, the exact status lifecycle values, an auth requirement (OAuth or API key), and what payload to expect on completion. That is the operational context an agent needs to avoid hot-looping or misreading an in-progress run.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the return shape, then timing guidance, then the auth prerequisite. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and safety fully covered by annotations, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: response fields, status values, polling timing, and auth. Nothing material to correct invocation is missing.

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 0% and run_id is documented only as an integer with minimum 1. The description implies the parameter's origin by tying the call to a run started by open_end_start_run, but never states that run_id is the identifier returned by that call. That partial compensation earns a middling score rather than the 0-param baseline.

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 (polls) and resource (an analysis run), enumerates the exact fields returned (status, progress, stalled, error code, hierarchy_id), and explicitly anchors itself to the sibling that creates the run, open_end_start_run. An agent can distinguish it from open_end_get_results without opening either schema.

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 clear context for use: it is the polling counterpart to open_end_start_run, and it tells the agent to wait next_poll_after_seconds (10-30 s) between polls because runs take minutes. It does not explicitly say to switch to open_end_get_results once status is completed, leaving that handoff implicit via the hierarchy_id mention.

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