Analysis Result Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a warning about not inferring success from files, but does not disclose what the validation checks, what 'evidence' means, or what the response contains. With an output schema present the return shape is covered, but behavioral context beyond annotations is thin.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded but very terse for a tool whose purpose is not self-evident from the name alone.

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 status/validation tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description should at least clarify what status is returned and how it relates to sibling verification tools. Instead it offers only a terse warning, leaving the agent to guess the return semantics and the relationship to arcgis_pro_verify_output_dataset.

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% and there is one required parameter (run_id). The description mentions 'checked-run' but does not explain what a run_id identifies, where it comes from, or its format. Baseline is 3 for a one-parameter tool; the description adds little.

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 implies the tool validates/revalidates analysis result status, but it never states a specific verb+resource like 'get the status of a checked analysis run'. It names 'checked-run evidence' and 'file versions' which hints at scope, but the purpose is vague enough that an agent can't confidently say what the tool returns.

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?

The closing clause 'never infer success from file existence' implies the tool should be used to verify success rather than inferring it, but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs alternatives like arcgis_pro_verify_output_dataset or arcgis_pro_gp_job_status. Usage is only implied.

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