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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's only added behavioral content is 'Returns its status and results', which is redundant with the existing output schema. It adds no information about latency, mission lifecycle states, or what happens for an unknown/incomplete id.

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, zero filler. The usage condition is front-loaded, the return summary follows, and the alternative-tool routing is last — a clean information hierarchy.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers trigger, scope, and alternative routing. Return values are already specified by the output schema, so no further disclosure is needed for correct invocation.

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 100% and there is only one parameter, whose schema text ('the mission id (from list_missions)') already documents format and provenance. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond the schema, 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 and resource ('get one specific Xenition mission by id') and even defines the term ('a long-running multi-agent job'), which resolves the ambiguity between the title 'Get an agent run' and the name get_mission. It also names the sibling it is not (list_missions), so an agent can route 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?

Explicitly states the triggering condition ('when the user asks about one specific mission by id') and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it ('To see all missions, use list_missions'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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