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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds async-operation context, the status set, and the zone-matching constraint, which are useful beyond the 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?

Three tight sentences: purpose and possible states first, usage/zone constraint second, endpoint last. No wasted text.

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 simple read-only lookup with full schema descriptions and safety annotations, the description supplies the missing behavioral context (async statuses and zone scoping). It does not explain polling behavior or the full response shape, but the statuses are the key return values.

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 id and zone. The description adds a meaningful constraint for zone—use the same zone as the call that created the operation—which goes beyond the schema's login-default framing.

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 and resource: get the state of an asynchronous operation, with enumerated states (pending, success, failure, timeout). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling get_* tools, none of which return operation status.

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?

Tells the agent when to use it (after start, stop, or reboot) and the key prerequisite (same zone as the creating call). It does not name when-not to use it or an alternative tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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