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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the long-polling semantics, terminal results, and the `poll_after_seconds` behavior when the run is still in progress. It does not contradict any annotation; it only omits edge-case behavior such as timeout handling.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences that lead with the main action, then provide terminal/in-progress behavior. Every word adds useful information and no filler or repeated schema content is present.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description conveys the most critical behavioral contract: terminal responses contain one entry per output creation with a real identifier for `creations_show`, and in-progress responses provide `poll_after_seconds`. It is mostly complete for a polling tool, though it could mention timeout/error outcomes; given the read-only annotations, this level is adequate.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain either `workflowRunIdentifier` or `timeoutSeconds`. The only indirect hint is 'Long-poll a `flows_run`,' which suggests the subject is a flow run identifier, but the agent gets no guidance on how `timeoutSeconds` behaves or how it interacts with polling. This leaves the parameter-heavy workload under-documented.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Long-poll a `flows_run`.' It also clarifies the expected outcome by contrasting 'Terminal' behavior (one entry per output creation with real identifiers for `creations_show`) and 'In-progress' behavior (`poll_after_seconds`), which differentiates it from sibling tools like `magnific_flows_get` or `magnific_creations_wait`.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool: you should call it to long-poll a flow run and handle terminal versus in-progress states. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., 'instead of `magnific_flows_get`'), so it lacks full when/when-not guidance.

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