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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that the endpoint is auth-required, cheap, and intended for header polling. It also discloses conditional 'publication payload (if built)' but does not detail rate limits or error behavior.

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?

It front-loads the purpose, lists return fields compactly because no output schema exists, and closes with concise usage and auth notes. Every element serves the caller.

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 read-only, single-parameter status snapshot, the description supplies the missing output context (key return fields), auth requirement, and polling guidance. Nothing essential for invocation is absent.

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 only parameter, id, is fully documented by the schema as a session id from pcc_onboard_session_start. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraint beyond that.

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?

The description names a specific resource — a physical-operator onboarding session — and a specific operation, coarse status snapshot, so an agent can distinguish it from onboarding siblings like start, scrape, or build_agent. The listed return fields reinforce the purpose.

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?

It states the intended use context: 'designed for polling from the chat header' and notes it is cheap and auth-required. It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the polling context is clear.

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