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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'durable' and 'terminal result', which slightly extends context, but it does not specify response behavior, failure modes, or what 'terminal' means in practice. It provides some value beyond annotations but does not go deep.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the verb, resource, and key qualifiers without any filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly efficient for agent parsing.

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 simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and comprehensive annotations, the description is nearly complete. It does not explain what 'terminal result' entails or the response format, but with no output schema, these details are less critical. The core usage is fully covered.

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 both run_id and conversation_id fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter context, so it meets the baseline for schema-heavy definitions but offers no extra semantic enrichment.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current status and terminal result of a durable Modem agent run'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like modem_agent_invoke, modem_agent_send_message, and modem_agent_cancel_run. The purpose is unambiguous and the scope is well-defined.

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?

The description implies usage (to retrieve status after a run has been invoked) but does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives, nor does it mention that it complements invoke/send_message or that cancel_run is for termination. The guidance is not misleading but relies on the tool name and context for full clarity.

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