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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: monitor findings never block while other findings do, that a passed evaluation's release goes live shortly after and a blocked/errored one is refused, the polling loop via retry_after_seconds, and the auth requirement. This is well beyond what the structured fields 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?

Purpose and the return contents are front-loaded, then usage guidance, then the auth note. It is dense and a little sprawling in the middle enumeration, but nearly every clause carries distinct information an agent needs (blocking vs monitor findings, the poll loop).

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 carries the burden of describing return values and does so thoroughly, listing each field family and the fix guidance. It also covers the async/polling lifecycle and the account prerequisite, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call and interpret it correctly.

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%, so all four parameters are already documented, including the 'use 20 while retry_after_seconds' note on wait_seconds and the 'omit for latest' note on evaluation_id. The description restates the evaluation_id and wait_seconds semantics rather than adding format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (follow/read) and resource (a publish's release evaluation) and enumerates exactly what the answer contains: status, per-policy evaluation with checker/enforcement/status, blocking findings with file/line/package, rule and fix, monitor findings, and deploy outcome. This is far more specific than the sibling get_build or list_releases, so an agent can tell it apart without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear operating conditions: omit evaluation_id to read the service's latest evaluation, and re-call with wait_seconds 20 while the answer carries retry_after_seconds. It also states the prerequisite that a Valet account must be connected. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g. list_releases) for the when-not case, so it is strong context rather than a full routing rule.

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