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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the async lifecycle, the backoff schedule, realistic wait times (20–30 min under 500k LOC), the irreversible loss of prior versions after reanalysis, and the auth requirement including the api_key header workaround. That is unusually complete behavioral context for a read endpoint.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the polling procedure, timing expectations, version caveat, and auth note in a logical order. It is on the longer side but essentially every sentence carries actionable 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 a 2-param tool with no output schema, the description covers status semantics ('processing'), polling behavior, latency, version retention, and auth. It stops short of enumerating the returned fields, but the agent has enough to call and interpret the tool 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 100%, so both parameters (vault_id, api_key) are already documented in the schema, including the api_key fallback rationale. The description restates the auth fallback but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns the latest version/status info for a vault') and clarifies its scope ('always returns the latest version only'), which distinguishes it from the report/results siblings. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from get_vault, so it stops 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?

Gives clear operational context: poll only when status is 'processing', using exponential backoff (5s–60s), and sets expectations for analysis duration. It lacks explicit when-to-use-this-vs-<sibling> routing (e.g., versus get-code-vault-results or get_vault), so it is clear context without exclusions.

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