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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the genuinely useful behavior that the call must be repeated until a terminal status, but it says nothing about whether partial results are returned while running, poll-rate expectations, or error behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the purpose is front-loaded and the polling instruction follows immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing 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 carries the burden of explaining what 'results' looks like and what the full status set is (only COMPLETED and FAILED are named). For a polling endpoint this is adequate but leaves the agent guessing about intermediate states and result availability.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage (a UUID-formatted 'Simulation ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema — it never mentions simulationId or its provenance.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get simulation status and results'), which is clearly distinct from siblings such as lexq_simulation_start, lexq_simulation_cancel, and lexq_simulation_list. It does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Poll until status is COMPLETED or FAILED' gives real operational guidance for the polling loop and names the terminal states. However, it does not say how to obtain a simulationId (presumably from lexq_simulation_start), nor how frequently to poll or what to do on repeated FAILED responses.

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