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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine return context — it enumerates the fields surfaced (type, done flag, starter, optimized/skipped stops) and discloses the 'up to 20 per page' cap, which is meaningful behavior beyond the annotations.

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?

A single dense sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then packs the return fields and pagination limit with no wasted words, ending with the endpoint. Nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by summarizing the returned fields, and both parameters are schema-documented. It is nearly complete for a read-only list tool; only the absence of tie-in guidance for get_operation keeps it short of a 5.

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 both page_token and max_page_size are fully documented in the schema. The description's 'up to 20 per page' merely restates what the schema's maximum already enforces, adding no syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List long-running operations') and clarifies the domain by equating 'operations' with 'plan optimizations'. It clearly reads as a list tool, though it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling spoke_get_operation.

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 only implied: the listed fields ('done flag', 'result') suggest polling to check optimization status, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g., get_operation for a single job). Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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