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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive), so the description's real contribution is the error semantics: an unknown id reports as not found rather than still-working, which prevents an agent from polling forever. It does not describe polling cadence or what status values look like, leaving a small gap.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, then returns, then the edge case. Every sentence carries information an agent needs and none is wasted.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't detail return values and correctly limits itself to a summary plus the not-found edge case. It omits guidance on whether/how often to re-check a still-running job, which is the only material gap for a status-polling 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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself stating 'the job id returned by run_agent'. The description's reference to a run 'started by run_agent' duplicates rather than extends that, so the 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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (a background agent run), ties it to the originating sibling run_agent, and enumerates what comes back (status, final answer, view link). An agent can distinguish this from get_mission or list_missions without opening a 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 an explicit trigger: use when the user asks whether the run is done or what it found, and names run_agent as the prerequisite. No explicit when-not or alternative tool is offered, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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