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

Annotations already mark it readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond those: the required requests:read scope, the guarantee that no additional funds are reserved, the stable workflow binding, the pending/terminal status shape, and the note that resumption is owned by the originating workflow. This gives the agent a full side-effect and lifecycle picture.

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-load purpose, then deliver behavior/return semantics and a polling directive. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundancy.

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 adequately covers what the tool returns (workflow binding, status, result, process proof) and how it should be used. The single parameter, annotations, and domain context are simple enough that the remaining ambiguity about resolution_id is minimal.

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 coverage is 0% and the description never directly explains resolution_id. However, the tool name and the phrase 'Read an existing authenticated resolution' indicate that the single required string identifies the resolution to poll, providing enough inference for an agent to invoke it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Read an existing authenticated resolution...'. It goes beyond a generic status tool by scoping the behavior ('without reserving more funds') and naming the returned workflow binding, pending/terminal status, result, and process proof, which separates it from resolution-creation or outcome siblings.

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?

It gives clear polling guidance ('Poll while pending; the originating workflow decides how to resume') and an implicit exclusion by stating it does not reserve funds. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls just short of a top score.

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