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 covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the wait-based polling model and the re-poll condition while queued/running. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned status values, which would help an agent parse results.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the polling mechanic. No filler.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned ('status and results') and how to drive the polling loop, which is the key operational knowledge. It could say more about what a terminal status looks like versus the intermediate queued/running states, but nothing critical for invoking it is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents run_id, wait (0-25, default 0) and include. The description's wait guidance largely restates the schema definition, and it never mentions include ('text: full write-up'), so it adds no meaning beyond the structured fields. Baseline 3 applies.

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 resource and scope: 'Status and results of a run started with run_live_analysis.' It anchors the tool to its sibling run_live_analysis (the starter) and distinguishes itself as the status/result reader without needing to open either 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 tells the agent to pass wait (up to 25s) to block until completion and to re-call while status is queued or running — this is real polling guidance. It lacks an explicit 'do not call before starting a run' exclusion, but the linkage to run_live_analysis makes the intended context clear.

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