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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes well beyond that: it names the field to gate the all-clear on (cleanUpComplete), explains that pending or failed clean-up is not a failure state, discloses that a pending window is often the deliberate inspection window, and gives a polling cadence. That is exactly the operational context annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each following sentence carries a distinct instruction: return shape, gating condition, and polling guidance. It is on the longer side for a one-parameter read tool, and the clean-up caution is repeated in slightly different words, but nothing is padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must cover return values, and it does: the attack report plus a cleanup summary with cleanUpComplete and a plain-language statement. An agent knows what to read and how to interpret the key flag. It stops short of describing the rest of the attack report's contents, which is the remaining gap.

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 single parameter attack_id has 100% schema description coverage, including where the value comes from ('returned by a previous launch_attack call'), so the description's constraint isn't compensating for anything missing. The description adds no new parameter information beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the work.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get the current report for a previously launched attack') and scopes it further by naming the clean-up state that this tool adds. That meaningfully separates it from siblings like get_attack_evidence and clean_up_attack, but the description never explicitly contrasts it with get_attack_details, which an agent could easily confuse it with. Clear purpose, incomplete sibling differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to report clean-up as complete ('Only ... when cleanup.cleanUpComplete is true') and when not to ('while anything is pending or failed ... report it as in progress'). It also tells the agent to poll 'no faster than ... a few minutes' and to read cleanup.statement rather than flagging a fault. What it lacks is a pointer to the sibling tool that actually starts clean-up (clean_up_attack), so an agent seeing a stuck clean-up has no explicit next step.

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