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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, so no safety disclosure is needed there. The description adds behavioral context beyond the schema by explaining the polling expectation and terminal statuses, which is valuable for an agent deciding how long to keep calling the tool.

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 description is two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the operational polling instruction is immediately actionable.

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?

For a low-complexity, single-parameter, read-only status tool, the description gives sufficient context: what to call, what to poll for, and when to stop. It does not describe the response format, but the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.

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%, and the one parameter 'simulationId' is already described as the simulation ID with a UUID format. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema carries the full burden and the baseline score 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?

The description names the exact verb ('Get'), the resource ('simulation status and results'), and the polling behavior, making it clearly distinct from siblings like simulation_start or simulation_cancel. It also tells the caller what terminal states to watch for, which unambiguously identifies the tool's purpose.

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 instruction to 'Poll until status is COMPLETED or FAILED' gives explicit operational guidance for how to use the tool in a loop. It does not name alternatives, but the context is clear and there are no misleading exclusions.

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