Acceptance Status

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already cover the safety profile, which helps. But the description adds very little beyond that—it doesn't state whether it blocks/waiting, how status transitions work, whether it returns partial results, or whether it faults on unknown/mismatched run_ids. For a polling-status tool that may block, this is a notable gap.

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 focused sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the primary function and references the origin tool. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

This is a status-read tool with full schema coverage and an output schema present, so the return-format burden is offloaded. Given annotations declare read-only and non-destructive, plus 100% param schema coverage, the main missing element is behavioral detail (blocking/polling semantics) and guidance on retry patterns. Adequate for a simple read, but a polling-status tool could disclose whether it waits.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description only names run_acceptance as the source of run_id, adding minor context on provenance, but the run_id/workspace/conversation/generation semantics are fully handled by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb ('read') and resource ('persisted execution and validation status for a long acceptance run') and refers to run_acceptance as the source. It's clear, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like read_acceptance_result or cancel_acceptance, relying on the tool name to imply the polling usage.

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 implies usage ('for a long acceptance run returned by run_acceptance') and positions this as the polling complement to run_acceptance. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no mention of polling patterns or retry expectations, and doesn't contrast with read_acceptance_result.

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