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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It does that by clarifying the tool is equivalent to a resource read and explaining its existence for clients that don't read resources directly, which is useful behavioral context beyond the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the topic and covered aspects, then gives the call condition, then clarifies its relationship to an MCP resource. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or filler content.

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 guidance tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is complete enough. It explains the subject matter, when to invoke it, and its resource equivalence, leaving no obvious gap for correct selection or invocation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately omits parameter details.

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 tool's purpose: guidance on handling async workflows, tool executions, and exports, including statuses, wait caps, polling, and webhooks. It is specific about the domain but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling guidance tools like get_getting_started_guidance or get_workflows_guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description gives a clear usage trigger: 'Call before polling or when a start tool returns a still-running snapshot.' It also notes that it's equivalent to reading a specific MCP resource and why it exists as a tool. However, it does not name alternative guidance tools or state when not to use this one.

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