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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful runtime context beyond annotations: the long-poll window is capped at 25 seconds, the call returns early if the run finishes, and it may return status "working" with a recommendation to re-call immediately without sleeping.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the polling-specific operational guidance. Every sentence contributes directly to correct invocation.

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?

The tool is a simple read/poll operation with full schema coverage and clear annotations. The description covers the key behavioral nuance, though it could say slightly more about the returned status/result shape given there is no output schema.

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 schema already documents conversation_id, run_id, and wait_seconds. The description adds practical semantic guidance for wait_seconds by recommending 25 and explaining the polling behavior when the result is "working".

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 states a specific verb and resource: get the status and result of a Modem agent run. It clearly distinguishes this polling/read operation from sibling run-mutating tools like modem_agent_invoke and modem_agent_cancel_run.

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?

It gives clear polling guidance: use wait_seconds 25 to wait, and immediately call again while status is "working". The surrounding lifecycle (run_id comes from invoke or send_message) is documented in the schema, but the description does not explicitly compare against cancel_run or state when not to use it.

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