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

The description adds real value beyond annotations: it discloses that the operation is asynchronous ('Queues a hosted job') and that despite readOnlyHint=false it does 'not mutate the project,' resolving the apparent tension in the annotation set. The 'revision-bound' framing also supports the idempotentHint by implying the expectedRevision pins the result. It stops short of covering permission requirements or failure modes.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the async-retrieval mechanic, with no filler. The jargon ('portable revision-bound document') is dense but each clause carries distinct information.

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 an async create tool with no output schema, the description correctly explains the job-queue pattern and result retrieval via get_job, and reassures on non-mutation. Gaps remain: no mention of validation/prerequisite ordering relative to validate_analysis_plan or run_analysis_plan, and the majority of parameters are semantically unexplained.

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 29%, so the description must compensate, yet it explains only two of seven parameters implicitly ('explicitly selected saved tables' for tableIds, 'revision-bound' for expectedRevision). Required-vs-optional distinctions, and the meaning of name, waveId, and projectId, remain undocumented in both places.

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+resource ('Create a portable revision-bound document') scoped to 'explicitly selected saved tables,' which clearly distinguishes it from run_analysis_plan and validate_analysis_plan by action. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 gives a use condition ('for explicitly selected saved tables') and a follow-up step ('use get_job to retrieve its result'), which is useful implied guidance. However it never says when to prefer validate_analysis_plan or run_analysis_plan, nor any prerequisites (e.g. needing a validated plan first), so alternatives are left to inference.

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