get_analysis_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context by listing the possible statuses ('queued, running, succeeded, failed, cancelled') and timestamps, which helps the agent understand what the response will contain. It also frames polling behavior, going beyond the annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a detailed return summary, a usage hint, and an Args block. Every sentence adds value. No fluff or repetition.

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 one-parameter polling tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is fully adequate. It covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return content. It does not need to explain return structure since an output schema exists.

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 only run_id with a title 'Run Id', but no description. The tool description compensates fully by stating 'run_id: Task identifier returned by start_analysis.' This provides provenance and clarifies the parameter's meaning, completely covering the schema's gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the current status of an analysis task.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like start_analysis (which starts tasks) and get_analysis_result (which likely retrieves results). The action is unambiguous and the scope is well-defined.

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 says 'Use this to poll for completion,' which explicitly tells the agent when to invoke this tool. It does not name alternative tools for exclusions, but the context is clear that polling is the intended use case. This is solid guidance, though it could mention not to use for final results.

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