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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does describe the returned fields well (last_run status values, timing, items in/out, error; paused), but discloses nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or that this is strictly a read-only status operation.

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 with no waste, and the core purpose (workers + last run + paused) is front-loaded before the parameter guidance.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained in the description. For a two-parameter read/status tool, the description covers purpose and both parameter modes adequately; only explicit read-only/auth context is missing.

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 the schema already documents both glian and limit fully. The description restates the glian= behavior without adding syntax or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (background workers/glians for this org) and precisely what it reports: last run and paused flag. It also enumerates the return fields (status, timing, items in/out, error). However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like glian_run_now or glian_set_paused.

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 via the parameter note: 'Pass glian= for its recent run history. Omit for every glian's last run.' There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over glian_run_now or glian_set_paused, and no prerequisites or when-not conditions.

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