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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return shape — aggregate counts with named buckets and per-item before/after values — which matters since no output schema exists. It stops short of covering pagination, partial/error states, or result completeness.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates the payload. No filler, no restatement of the title, every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it does so concretely via the count buckets and before/after item results. Read-only semantics are handled by annotations. Remaining gaps — pagination of per-item results and how errored items are represented — are minor for a simple status-read tool.

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%, with run_id explained as 'Run id returned by apply_fix' and project_id documented as project id or slug. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does all the semantic work here.

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 resource (the status and outcome of an apply_fix run) and enumerates what it returns: counts broken out by applied/already correct/no-op/errors plus per-item before/after values. Tying it to apply_fix distinguishes it from get_scan_status and get_plan_status, though it never explicitly contrasts with get_results, which covers similar ground.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call this to poll the outcome of an apply_fix run, and the schema notes run_id comes from apply_fix. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_results, get_plan_status, or rollback_fix, and no guidance on polling cadence or whether runs are terminal.

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