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

Goes well past the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations by disclosing the state machine (queued, claimed, succeeded, failed, expired, cancelled), the long-running worker behavior, output truncation with rows_omitted, and that provider content is labelled as evidence, never instructions. These are exactly the traits 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?

Front-loaded with the action and the wait behavior, then the return contract, then the polling instruction. Every sentence adds information an agent needs; there is no restatement of the title or name.

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 enumerates the returned fields and explains the meaning of state and untrusted_provider_content, so an agent knows both what it gets back and how to interpret it. Nothing needed to call or consume this tool correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does for wait_seconds (default 20, upper bound of the wait) and implies reuse of the same ids when polling. session_id and probe_id are left to their UUID formats with no explanation of their relationship, which is the one remaining gap.

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 ('Reads one probe_source probe') and adds scope ('waiting up to wait_seconds'). It is clearly the read counterpart to the probe_source sibling, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either 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?

Gives real operational guidance: 'While it is queued, call again with the same ids; a worker can take a few minutes to start' tells the agent to poll rather than abandon. It never explicitly names probe_source as the tool that creates the probe, so the alternative route is implied rather than stated.

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