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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds meaningful context beyond that: asynchronous background execution, that research can take minutes, that a run id returns immediately, and that progress/result/link arrive later. It stops short of stating permission or any failure/expiration behavior, so not a 5.

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 compact sentences, each earning its place: trigger condition first, then return/async behavior, then the prerequisite lookup. No filler and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 specified, yet the description covers the async contract and monitoring path anyway. Combined with the guidance on obtaining the slug, an agent has everything needed to invoke it 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (slug, input) are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces where the slug comes from ('Call list_agents first') and otherwise adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it launches one of the user's Xenition agents on a task in the background and returns a run id. It explicitly names and distinguishes siblings check_agent_run (monitoring) and list_agents (discovery), so an agent can tell it apart without opening the 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?

States the triggering condition ('when the user wants one of their Xenition agents to work on a task in the background') and routes to the right alternatives: call list_agents first if the agent is unknown, and use check_agent_run to follow progress. Both when-to-use and the adjacent tool choice are explicit.

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