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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it enumerates the six possible statuses and discloses that failed runs are refunded automatically, which is non-obvious behavior an agent/user would want. It stops short of stating polling cadence, how long 'queued' typically lasts, or whether terminal states are final.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the status vocabulary, then the next-step routing. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required. The description covers the lifecycle vocabulary, the refund side effect, and the follow-up call. Only polling/timing expectations are left unstated, a minor gap for a status-check tool.

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?

There is only one parameter and the nested schema property already documents it ('Run number returned by app-run'). The description reinforces the app-run provenance of the value but adds no syntax beyond that, which is acceptable for a single-param tool.

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 ('Check the status of a run') and immediately anchors it to the sibling that creates the run ('started with app-run'). An agent can distinguish this from app-run and app-result without opening any schema.

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 routes the agent: poll this after app-run, and once the status is 'succeeded', fetch app-result. The failed/canceled/expired terminal outcomes are named, so the agent knows when not to keep polling and when to branch.

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