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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful, non-obvious behavior: that in-flight responses carry pollAfterMs for re-polling, and that terminal execution status and website outcome are distinct and must be reported separately without inferring success. It stops short of covering error/permission behavior despite the "owned" qualifier.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the polling detail, then the critical interpretation warning. No padding or restatement of the name; every sentence carries load.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return fields, and annotations carry the safety profile; the remaining gaps are explicit auth/ownership explanation and error behavior. Its coverage of polling cadence and dual-status interpretation makes it essentially complete for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both params are documented there (runId: "returned by run_journey"; journeyId: "Owned journey ID"). The description's only added meaning is the "owned" ownership constraint, which is minor; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ("Poll an owned journey run") that clearly distinguishes a run-poll from the sibling get_journey. It does not explicitly contrast against the closest alternative (run_journey, which initiates the run, or get_journey which fetches config), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 mention that queued/running results include pollAfterMs implies a repeated-polling workflow, which is useful implicit guidance. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no statement that this is the follow-up to run_journey, and no named alternative, so usage is only implied.

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