Request Tolerance Landscape

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it returns a poll handle, details status='ready' vs 'processing' with up to ~1 hour cold build, explains polling with poll_after_s, and declares idempotency. This significantly aids agent understanding. No annotation contradiction.

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?

The description is two sentences plus a compact signature line. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, and every sentence adds value. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's 2 parameters, lack of output schema, and presence of annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the asynchronous nature, statuses, polling, and idempotency. The absence of an output schema description is a minor gap, but the poll handle is adequately explained.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions the parameters in the signature line but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. No new semantic details about values 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 the verb 'Submit (or re-confirm)', the resource 'MetaDome tolerance-landscape build', and the context 'for a versioned transcript'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_tolerance_landscape and resolve_transcript by specifying the action and return of a poll handle.

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 description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (to get a landscape build), what to expect (status flags), and the follow-up action (poll get_tolerance_landscape). It also notes idempotency. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions but the context is clear.

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