get_autopilot_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real operational context: reading never pauses or alters the run, no stop tool exists, calls cost no credits no matter the frequency, an API key is required, and an in-progress run is a normal response rather than an error. That is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the lifecycle routing, then the behavioral caveats; every sentence carries information. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary (the 'there is no tool here to stop it' and API-key notes could be trimmed), but nothing is wasted.

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 single-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description covers polling cadence, side-effect profile, cost, auth, and the non-error meaning of a partial result. It does not sketch the shape of the progress/results payload, which is the one remaining gap given there is no output schema to fall back on.

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% and the single parameter already documents itself as an 'Autopilot run UUID.' The description only restates that runId is the input, adding no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the current progress and results of one autopilot run') and scopes it to a single run, which distinguishes it from the sibling list_autopilot_runs. An agent can pick it apart from sibling status/listing tools without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly ties the tool to the run lifecycle: it is how you follow a run started by start_autopilot, called with the runId and spaced between polls. It stops short of saying when to prefer list_autopilot_runs or get_search_job_status, so it falls just short of full alternative coverage.

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