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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds the return behavior ('job id plus sync output when available'), but it does not disclose the side-effect model of running arbitrary Astrologos source code or clarify what makes sync output available. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. It communicates the core action and primary return values efficiently.

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?

This is an 8-parameter execution tool with no output schema and a destructive annotation, yet the description is minimal. It does not explain mode semantics, async follow-up via job_status/job_result, auth/token handling, output format, or destructive side-effect risks, leaving an agent without enough context for correct invocation.

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 every parameter already has a meaningful description. The tool description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. 'Sync output when available' loosely relates to mode, but the schema already documents execution modes.

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 ('Run'), identifies the exact resource ('an Astrologos program'), and states the return value ('job id plus sync output when available'). This clearly separates it from sibling tools like astrologos.job_status and astrologos.job_result, which operate on already-created jobs rather than creating them.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings, nor does it explain how sync/async modes should affect the follow-up workflow. The verb 'Run' implies the use case, but no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are named.

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