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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description discloses the actual status vocabulary (wartet, laeuft, fertig, fehlgeschlagen, abgebrochen), the per-node payload (status, attempts, result, error), and the crucial contract that a node's result is exactly what the tool returned and its ids feed subsequent tools. It also explains the `gefunden: false` outcome for angebot_id, which is non-obvious behavioral semantics.

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?

Front-loaded with 'Use when...' and then the resource definition, with zero filler. It is dense but every clause carries operational information (status values, node payload, id lineage, fallback lookup); the only minor cost is that the angebot_id/gefunden explanation reads as a slight appendage.

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 return-shape burden and does so: overall status, per-node status/attempts/result/error, and the sentinel `gefunden: false` case. Both (optional) parameters are covered, and the read-only safety profile is declared by annotations, so an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further: it explains that angebot_id substitutes for lauf_id to locate the run started from that offer, and what `gefunden: false` implies (no run created, nothing charged). That is real meaning beyond the schema's terse 'From lab_flow_angebot' text.

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?

It gives a precise verb+resource ('State of a Flow (Pipeline) run started with lab_flow_starten') and explicitly enumerates what is reported: overall run status plus per-node status, attempts, result and error. This clearly separates it from lab_flow_starten, lab_flow_fortsetzen and lab_flow_angebot without opening any 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?

The opening clause is a strong intent trigger list ('how far a run is, whether it finished, why it stopped or hangs, or what a step returned'), and it states the fallback path when lab_flow_starten's answer was lost. It never states when NOT to use it or names a competing status tool (e.g. lab_job_status, lab_batch_status), so it stops short of the top band.

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