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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'Read-only and free' plus 'pass an ideaId you own'—extra context about cost and ownership. It also discloses what the response covers (scores and status for each simulation type), going beyond the annotation.

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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and enumerates result categories; the second provides usage guidance and constraints. Efficient and well-structured.

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 getter with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, how to use it for polling, and the ownership constraint, leaving no significant gaps.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful constraint 'pass an ideaId you own', which is not present in the schema description. This clarifies the ownership requirement beyond the plain 'The idea ID'.

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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'an overview of every simulation run for an idea', enumerating specific simulation types. It distinguishes itself from sibling run_* tools by focusing on status retrieval, making the tool's role obvious.

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?

Explicitly guides usage: 'Use it to poll async simulations and see what has finished.' This tells the agent when to use the tool after initiating simulations. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is clear enough for a polling tool.

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