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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with 'Changes nothing'. It adds useful behavioral context by explaining that wait_seconds polls up to 120 seconds for a status change and by listing the possible status outcomes.

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?

The description is short and front-loaded: it first states the fix status states, then explains the wait behavior, then closes with the safety-relevant 'Changes nothing'. Every sentence carries useful information.

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 read-only status tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description provides the key status states and long-polling behavior. It leaves some gaps around exact return shape and id semantics, but is broadly complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates for wait_seconds by explaining that it waits up to 120 seconds for a change. The required id parameter is not described beyond its name, and workspace meaning is only covered by the schema itself.

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 clearly indicates this tool reports the status of a fix request, listing concrete states such as checked, deploying, live, or open again with a new error. It also distinguishes the read-only nature with 'Changes nothing', though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like claim_fix or report_fix.

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 implied: follow a fix request and optionally wait for its status to change. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use this instead of fix, fixes, claim_fix, or report_fix, so the agent must infer the routing.

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