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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes real additions: that the call is free and that it returns the full report once the run completes. It stops short of describing status values, polling cadence, or whether report retrieval remains free at scale, which are the details an agent polling in a loop would want.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the secondary behavior (report retrieval) following. The trailing "Free." is a single word that carries real decision value for a paid-API context, so it earns its place.

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-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential loop: check status, then collect the report. Only the shape of a status response (e.g., in-progress vs. failed vs. complete) is unaddressed, which is a modest gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% and the property description is unusually rich (UUID, omit → not_found), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds little beyond naming the identifier as "run_id" while the schema calls it "report_id" — a mismatch that may help or may confuse an agent mapping the two. 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?

"Check the status of an intelligence run" names a specific verb and resource, and the second clause adds a distinct capability: retrieving the full report once complete. This is clear enough to act on without opening the schema, though it never contrasts itself with the polling-vs-blocking sibling (wait_for_report), so the boundary is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied — you call this to poll a run started elsewhere and to fetch the artifact afterward — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for cases where blocking would be preferable (wait_for_report). The schema's note about omitted ids returning not_found is genuinely useful routing context, but it lives in the schema, not the description.

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