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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds far more: the full state machine, the meaning of each state, the human-in-the-loop pause condition, and the recommended polling cadence. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that cannot be inferred from structured fields.

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 prerequisite are front-loaded, followed by the state enumeration that gives each state an interpreting gloss, and it closes with the polling instruction. No sentence is filler despite the density.

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 re-explained; the description instead supplies the interpretation of each state and the next action for terminal states. Nothing an agent needs to call and act on this tool 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% and the single test_id parameter is already documented as 'returned by run_test'. The description's mention of run_test adds no syntax or format 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+resource ('Check a Menso test') and ties it back to its sibling run_test, which produced the test_id. An agent can immediately tell this is the polling companion to run_test rather than get_findings or get_replay_link.

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?

Explicitly says to poll every 30-60 seconds and routes the agent to get_findings once state is 'done'. It also flags that 'paused' requires human action in the Menso web app, which is an actionable when-to-act condition.

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