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

Description discloses that it returns a snapshot, polling behavior, and response flags. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it covers expected behavioral traits like real-time updates and completion detection.

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?

Description is bloated with extensive display instructions and examples that are not essential for tool selection/invocation. The core behavior is only a small part; the rest could be separate guidance.

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?

Covers polling and response but lacks error handling, idempotency, or restrictions. Output schema exists, so return description is sufficient, but behavioral context is incomplete without annotations.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal semantics via 'Args:' line explaining rule_name and execution_id. This is helpful but basic, lacking details like formats or constraints.

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 clearly states 'Fetch execution progress for a running rule' with a specific verb and resource. While it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools like 'check_rule_status', the name itself is unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit polling instructions: 'call this tool repeatedly every 1 seconds', check 'continue_polling' flag, and criteria for stopping. Clear when to use and how to interpret response.

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