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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: this is a polling endpoint, the terminal condition is 'done is true', and the typical operation source is spoke_optimize_plan.

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 tight sentences: purpose, polling behavior, and endpoint. The critical polling instruction ('poll until done is true') is front-loaded and nothing is wasted.

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, it adequately conveys what the agent gets back (an operation with a done flag) and how to use it for polling. It stops short of naming other operation fields (progress, errors) that an agent polling a long-running job might need.

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 schema already documents the accepted id forms ('abc' or 'operations/abc'). The description's 'GET /operations/{operationId}' merely echoes that format, adding little beyond the structured field.

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 ('One operation', 'GET /operations/{operationId}'), making it clearly the singular fetch counterpart to spoke_list_operations. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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?

Gives concrete context: it is used to poll an operation started by spoke_optimize_plan until 'done is true'. Names the originating tool and the polling pattern, though it does not state when not to use it (e.g. vs. spoke_list_operations for enumeration).

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