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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that with a state-dependent return shape (current job with brief/tools/calls-left, or the report card once finished) and a concrete rate limit of 60 calls per minute per address, which is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot express.

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 labeled clauses (purpose, Inputs, Returns, Limits) front-load the intent and carry no filler. Every sentence contributes information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers input, both possible return states, and a rate limit, which is close to sufficient. It stops short of telling the agent the terminal condition for polling (e.g., stop when the report card is returned) or what happens for an unknown or expired gauntlet_id.

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 parameter carries a regex pattern plus a pointer to gauntlet_start as its origin. The description's 'Inputs: gauntlet_id' restates the parameter name without adding format, sourcing, or error semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: retrieve the standing of a Gauntlet run, with a named input and a described return. It implicitly distinguishes itself from gauntlet_start and gauntlet_act by framing itself as an observation of an existing run, though it never names those siblings.

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 implied by 'see where a Gauntlet run stands', which suggests a polling/check-in role after a run exists. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-alternatives guidance and no stated precondition that the run must have been created by gauntlet_start, even though the schema hints at it.

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