Trigger long running operation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important behaviors: the job is fabricated ('fake') and it emits a progress notification on each step. This effectively signals a safe, simulated operation. It does not detail blocking behavior, notification target, or completion effects, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the key facts (fake, multi-step, per-step progress notification) are stated up front. This is appropriately sized for a low-complexity tool.

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 simple, optional-parameter fake job with an output schema, the description covers the core invocation behavior. It could add a sentence about how the two parameters shape the run, but defaults and self-explanatory names plus the output schema make the definition mostly complete.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for the two parameters and schema coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain how 'steps' and 'step_seconds' control the operation. 'Multi-step' hints at 'steps', but the description says nothing about 'step_seconds' or how either parameter affects execution. Parameter names and titles are somewhat self-explanatory, but not enough at 0% coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('a fake multi-step job'), and the observable behavior ('emitting a progress notification per step'). The word 'fake' distinguishes it from real operational tools in the sibling list, so an agent can identify what this tool is for.

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 'fake' qualifier implies the tool is for testing or demonstration rather than real operations, but the description never explicitly states when to use it or which alternatives to prefer. There is no exclusionary guidance or mention of sibling tools, leaving the usage context to be inferred.

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