Read a durable operation

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description does add beyond that: authorization is scoped to the operation's persisted namespace/cluster object, and the ID is globally unique and must be resolved first — useful auth/sequencing context, though phrased cryptically. It says nothing about behavior when the operation is not found or how a durable operation's state evolves.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the operation subject is front-loaded. The second sentence is dense with internal jargon ("persisted namespace/cluster object") in a way that costs clarity more than it costs length.

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?

There is no output schema and the description never indicates what is returned — status, progress, timestamps — nor whether the caller should poll or hand off to `wait`. For a tool whose entire value is inspecting a long-running durable operation, that return-semantics gap leaves the agent under-informed about how to use the result.

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% for the single `operation` parameter, so the description must carry the semantic load. It does contribute that the value is a globally unique ID requiring prior resolution, but it gives no format, source, or example of where such an ID comes from (presumably operations_list), leaving the parameter only partly illuminated.

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?

"Read a durable operation" is essentially the tool name and title restated, adding only the adjective "durable." It never explains what an operation object is or how this differs from sibling readers like operations_list and cluster_operations_list, so an agent gets no discriminating signal.

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 second sentence supplies a real prerequisite — the globally unique operation ID must be resolved before calling — which implies the fetch-single-resource context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus operations_list, no mention of the related `wait` sibling for polling, and no stated conditions under which this call is inappropriate.

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