Onboard a new data source, step 2: run analysis after uploading

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool waits for a terminal state and should not be re-called on timeout—behavioral traits not covered by annotations. This is useful but not exhaustive (e.g., what happens on failure is implied but not detailed).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by a specific fallback instruction. No filler, perfectly concise.

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 four parameters (two required), an outputless spec, and a clear two-step onboarding flow, the description covers the essential context: when to call, what it does, and how to handle timeouts. It could mention return values, but the summary of waiting for 'ready' or 'failed' is sufficient for the agent to decide next steps.

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 100% parameter description coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning—it implies specId is the one returned by onboard_data_source and that loadSampleData triggers a data-load job. That context is helpful but does not significantly exceed the schema's own descriptions, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's role: it kicks off AI analysis after uploading and waits for a terminal state ('ready' or 'failed'). It explicitly references the prior step (onboard_data_source) and distinguishes itself from polling via get_status, making it unmistakable among siblings.

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?

Provides explicit sequence guidance: 'Call after uploading the file(s) returned by onboard_data_source' and instructs to 'Poll with get_status instead of re-calling this if it times out.' This clarifies when to invoke the tool and when to use an alternative, which is exactly what agents need.

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