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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the behavioral burden and delivers: it enumerates the status codes (N/R/C/F/E) and mentions percentageComplete. With no output schema, this return-shape disclosure is genuinely useful context, though it says nothing about polling cadence or lifecycle transitions.

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?

One dense sentence plus a short API endpoint reference. The purpose and status-code legend are front-loaded with no filler, and every clause carries 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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value semantics (status code legend and percentageComplete), which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret results. Nothing essential is omitted.

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?

The single parameter has 100% schema description coverage and is documented as 'the planningId returned by optimoroute_start_planning'. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the schema does the heavy lifting; 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?

Names a specific verb (check/get) and resource (planning run / route optimization status) and explicitly ties it to the sibling that creates such a run, optimoroute_start_planning. An agent can distinguish this from optimoroute_get_dispatch_status or optimoroute_get_routes without opening a schema.

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 the reference to a run 'started with optimoroute_start_planning', which tells the agent this follows a start call. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives such as stop_planning or how to poll versus wait.

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