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

Annotations already declare it is non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds the async behavior ('queues a hosted job') and the retrieval path via get_job, which is real added value. It does not address the idempotency contract despite the idempotencyKey param, nor failure/timeout behavior.

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 with the primary action front-loaded and the retrieval step trailing. No filler or repetition. Slightly terse given the tool's complexity, but nothing is wasted.

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 17-parameter analytical job runner with no output schema, the description leaves most parameters and the result shape implicit. It covers the async retrieval lifecycle but not the model specification (outcome/predictors/design) an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 12% across 17 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It names the three method values (matching the enum) but explains nothing about outcome, predictors, clusters, missingPolicy, filterId, or surveyDesignId. Two undocumented parameters (workspaceToken, requestId) are the only schema-level descriptions.

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 ('Run') over a defined resource ('declared-design OLS, logistic, or K-means method') and notes the side effect of recording bounded canonical evidence. The three method names map cleanly to the enum, letting an agent distinguish it from generic siblings like run_analysis_plan. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings.

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?

Provides a genuine follow-up instruction ('use get_job to retrieve its result'), which is useful for an async tool. However, it gives no when-to-use vs alternatives (e.g., run_analysis_plan, run_table) and no prerequisites such as needing a prior declare_survey_design. Usage is implied, not stated.

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