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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write-but-safe profile is known. The description adds genuinely useful operational semantics — the watchdog compares checkpoints to the job's wall-clock budget rather than probing process existence — but never states the consequence of missing checkpoints, expected cadence, or what a call returns.

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 sentences with the operational purpose front-loaded and no filler; the trailing args list is the only mildly redundant part since it duplicates the schema.

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 only two flat parameters, no output schema, and existing annotations, the definition covers the basics. However, for a tool that participates in a watchdog protocol, the absence of checkpoint cadence expectations and the failure consequence leaves a real operational gap.

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 must carry parameter meaning, yet 'Args: run_id, note?.' only restates the names already visible in the schema. It never says whether run_id must come from start_run, nor what a note contributes to the progress record.

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 and resource ('Report run progress'), and the second clause clarifies what a checkpoint actually signals to the watchdog, distinguishing it from siblings like complete_run, start_run, and watchdog_tick. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary from context.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this should be called periodically during a live run to prove liveness, but nothing states when to call it versus complete_run or start_run, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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