submit_async_task

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description reinforces that by saying 'read operation'. It adds context beyond annotations by specifying 'allowlisted' (implying restrictions), 'long-running' (performance characteristics), and 'background' (execution model). No contradiction exists, and the extra detail is valuable though it does not cover error handling or cancellation behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It delivers the core purpose effectively and is appropriately sized for a straightforward submission 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?

With an output schema present, the return value might be covered elsewhere, but the description fails to provide essential context about the operation allowlist, how to construct parameters, or whether an instance is required. For a tool that submits long-running tasks, users need to know what operations are permitted and how to structure inputs, which is missing. This makes the description incomplete for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for explaining parameters. However, it only mentions 'operation' implicitly via the word 'operation' in the text, without defining what an operation is, how to specify parameters (params), or what instance refers to. The schema shows three parameters, but none are explained, making param semantics weak.

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 a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('operation'), and adds qualifiers ('allowlisted', 'long-running', 'read', 'background') that distinguish it from sibling async tools like get_async_task, cancel_async_task, and list_async_tasks. It unambiguously communicates that this tool submits a background read task.

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 phrase 'long-running read operation' implies when to use it (for reads that take time), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it, mention alternatives like synchronous reads, or explain that results should be retrieved via get_async_task. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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