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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so no contradiction. The description adds that it uses the deterministic run_table engine and returns a job to poll, which provides useful context about the asynchronous nature. However, it doesn't elaborate on side effects or error behavior, and the annotations already cover safety. Minimal added value beyond 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence adds the key behavioral detail about polling. Every word earns its place; the description is appropriately sized 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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does mention the job polling mechanism, which is essential, but it doesn't explain the meaning of projectId, tableId, or waveId, nor does it describe the job response structure. Given the low schema coverage, more guidance is needed for correct invocation. The mention of get_job is helpful but not sufficient.

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 only 40% (only requestId and workspaceToken have descriptions). The tool description does not compensate for the undocumented projectId, tableId, and waveId parameters. It adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the agent is left without guidance on what these fields represent or how to fill them. The description fails to bridge the coverage gap.

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 action ('Run a governed crosstab') and the target ('existing hosted project'). It also distinguishes itself as a 'task shortcut' using the run_table engine, which hints at a simpler variant. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like analyze_crosstab or run_table, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 implies this is a shortcut for running a crosstab on an existing project, and mentions it returns a job to poll with get_job. But it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this over run_table or analyze_crosstab, nor does it provide exclusions or conditions. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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