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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the non-read side effect: 'Reaching ready also PERSISTS the owner's onboarding-completion state, so this is not a pure read.' It also exposes tenant-scoping behavior with 404s and explains polling semantics, giving agents an accurate behavioral model.

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: purpose first, then return values, then the actionable next step, then the important side effect and scoping caveat. Every sentence earns its place and the structure supports quick agent parsing.

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 one-parameter polling tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: return statuses, error conditions, polling interval, terminal action, side effects, and tenant scoping. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke and act on this 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?

The input schema provides only a bare project_id string with no description, so the description carries the interpretive burden. It adds meaningful semantics by clarifying that a project outside the caller's workspace causes a 404 and that the tool applies to newly created projects. It could go further by explaining how to obtain project_id, but the name and context make it largely self-evident.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a new project has finished setting up and is ready to build.' It also enumerates the exact return shape (overall status, 7-stage checklist, error_kind), making the tool's purpose unambiguous and easy to distinguish from sibling status tools.

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 provides explicit control-flow guidance: poll every ~10s while provisioning or errored, and call submit_request(project_id, text) once overall is 'ready'. It clearly states when to use the result, though it does not explicitly name alternative 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.