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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true; the description adds the async behavior (queues a hosted job) and the follow-up retrieval path via get_job, which is genuinely useful context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the destructiveHint=false or openWorldHint=false hints.

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 purpose and followed by the behavioral/workflow note. Minimal waste, though the job-queuing clause could be slightly tighter.

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 4-required-parameter async tool with a secret token and no output schema, the description covers the async pattern and result retrieval well. It stops short of clarifying the plan parameter format or the projectId's role, leaving a gap for a fairly complex tool.

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 coverage is only 50%: requestId and workspaceToken are documented in-schema, but projectId and the complex 'plan' parameter are undocumented. The description calls it a 'portable analysis plan' but adds no meaning about the plan's structure or format, leaving the most opaque parameter unclarified.

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 (preflight/validate) and resource (portable analysis plan) plus the scope (against the current workspace project). An agent can distinguish it from run_analysis_plan and create_analysis_plan by the validation semantics, though the sibling names are not cited explicitly.

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 workflow guidance by naming get_job as the retrieval tool and implying preflight use before running. However, it never states when to choose validate vs run_analysis_plan or create_analysis_plan, so the routing decision is left to inference.

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