GetATCRunStatus

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers a genuinely non-obvious behavioral clarification: 'finished means ended, not that the checks passed.' That prevents a serious misinterpretation of the return value. It still omits whether the call blocks or must be polled, and what happens for an unknown/expired run_id.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core question, then the precondition, then the interpretation caveat and the follow-up tool. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, provenance of the ID, semantics of the result, and the handoff to GetATCFindings. The only remaining gap is polling/blocking behavior and error handling for stale run IDs.

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% and the schema description already says the run_id is 'answered by RunATC when wait was false.' The description's 'only a run started with wait=false has one' largely restates that, so it adds little parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Ask whether an ATC run has ended' tells the agent exactly what it retrieves, and it explicitly separates itself from RunATC (which starts the run) and GetATCFindings (which returns results). An agent can pick it out of a 100+ sibling list without opening the schema.

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?

States the precondition (run_id comes from RunATC, and only a run started with wait=false produces one) and the follow-up route (use GetATCFindings with worklist_id for results). Both the when and the next-step alternative are explicit.

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