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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the call is asynchronous ('Queues a hosted job') and results must be retrieved separately via get_job. It does not clarify job lifetime, polling behavior, or what happens on duplicate requestIds, keeping it below a 5.

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 compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and the follow-up (get_job) immediately after. No filler, though the second sentence could be folded into the first for maximum economy.

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 job-queueing mutation with no output schema, the description at least tells the agent where the result lands (get_job), which is essential. But it leaves three required parameters unexplained and never defines what 'diagnostics and evidence metadata' actually contains, so an agent lacks enough to invoke confidently on first try.

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% – requestId and workspaceToken are documented in the schema, while projectId, tableId, and waveId are not. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, not even clarifying that 'one crosstab' refers to the tableId or what waveId scopes. With low coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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 ('Compute one crosstab') plus the added output ('diagnostics and evidence metadata'). The phrase 'one crosstab' hints at scope, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like render_crosstab, analyze_crosstab, or run_tab_book, so the agent must infer the difference.

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 clear workflow directive: the tool queues a hosted job and the result is fetched via get_job. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this over render_crosstab, analyze_crosstab, or run_tab_book, so usage relative to alternatives is only implied.

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