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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does reasonably well: it discloses streaming semantics ('emits a progress notification on every phase change') and both termination paths ('resolves with the final result when the build completes or fails'). It omits whether the call blocks, whether it can be cancelled, and any auth or timeout constraints.

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 with no filler: identity of the resource first, then runtime behavior, then the call-timing rule. Every sentence earns its place 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?

For a single-parameter streaming tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it and what to expect back in kind (progress notifications, final result). The shape of the emitted notifications and final result is left unspecified, which is the only real gap.

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 the single parameter is already documented as 'The buildId returned by build_feature.' The description restates the same provenance without adding format or validity details, so the schema does the heavy lifting and 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 ('Follow a build ... in real time') and anchors it to the sibling that produces the input ('a build submitted by build_feature'), which implicitly separates it from polling siblings like get_build and list_builds.

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?

'Use immediately after build_feature returns a buildId' gives an explicit triggering condition and ordering relative to another tool. It does not, however, state when NOT to use it (e.g., when a build has already finished, use get_build instead), so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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