Get application recipe validation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious context: that this GET has no side effects on tags and does not spawn a new validation, plus the 'Requires applications:read' auth requirement. It does not specify polling cadence or timeout behavior, so it stops short of 5.

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 core action, then the distinguishing constraint, then the follow-up workflow. Every sentence carries information, though the dense internal jargon (resolved_compose_yaml, pinned document) makes it slightly harder to parse at a glance.

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?

With no output schema present, the description does the work of naming the key return signal (valid=true) and the state to retain (resolved_compose_yaml). Combined with the auth requirement and the sibling-based entry condition, an agent has enough to call and act on this correctly; only terminal/error handling is unaddressed.

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 coverage is only 50% (orderNo is documented, validation_id is bare), so the description carries extra weight. It supplies the provenance of validation_id (the value returned by validate_application_recipe) and ties it to the recipe creation flow, which meaningfully supplements the schema.

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 (poll/get) on a specific resource (the persisted customer recipe validation) and explicitly separates itself from validate_application_recipe by noting it 'does not resolve tags or create another validation.' An agent can distinguish it from all the sibling get_* and validate_* 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?

Tells the agent when this is used (after validate_application_recipe, or during a pending creation/revision) and what to do with the result (resume creation using the pinned document and validation_id once valid=true). It also implicitly states a when-not: do not call this to create a validation. Missing only guidance for the failure/pending-forever case, which keeps it off a 5.

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