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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: execution is asynchronous, can take a few minutes, and a run id is returned immediately while results stream in. It does not explain the destructive/irreversible nature flagged by the annotations, but does not contradict them.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, followed by return/timing behavior and a prerequisite. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still covers the key async/timing expectation and the list_agents prerequisite. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

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% with only two parameters, so the schema fully documents slug and input. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, though its pointer to list_agents for obtaining the slug gives mild contextual value. 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 (run) and resource (a Xenition agent) plus the scope (work on a task in the background). It clearly distinguishes itself from the adjacent check_agent_run and list_agents siblings.

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 gives the trigger ('when the user wants one of their Xenition agents to work on a task'), names check_agent_run for reporting on progress, and tells the agent to call list_agents first when the agent is unknown. When-to-use and alternatives are both covered.

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