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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the receipt state machine (admitted, running, completed, outcome_unknown), the caveat that completed does not guarantee success, the polling rate limit, and the prohibition on replaying to recover expired results.

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?

Front-loads the action and keying inputs, then layers return behavior, then operational constraints. Four sentences, each carrying a distinct piece of information with no padding or restatement of the name.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by describing the return payload (receipt with status/progress, or original result including text, images, and tool errors). Combined with the state semantics and polling constraint, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool 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 the baseline is 3, but the description reinforces the critical semantic that the connection and operationId must be the ORIGINAL ones for an existing operation, which is the main misuse risk. It does not add format detail beyond the schema, but the emphasis is genuinely useful.

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 (an existing operation) plus the exact keying inputs (original connection and operationId). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like remote_cancel and remote_connections, which act on the operation or the connection set rather than polling a single operation.

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 strong operational guidance: poll no faster than every five seconds, treat outcome_unknown as requiring human inspection, and do not repeat an operation to recover expired results. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool for the cancel or reconnect paths, but the when/when-not conditions are clearly stated.

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