start_progressive_analysis

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 real work: it discloses that the call is non-blocking (immediate preliminary evidence plus queued deeper work) and that concurrent requests sharing a context_id supersede older ones. That supersede semantics is a behavioral trait not derivable from the schema. It stops short of stating auth, rate limits, or output shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the semicolon cleanly splits the immediate-return clause from the queuing/supersede clause. 'Preliminary evidence' is slightly vague about what is actually returned, keeping it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. But with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description leaves fen and history (including their relationship to one another) undocumented, which is a real gap for an analysis-start tool.

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 must compensate. It gives context_id real meaning via the supersede rule, but fen and history are left entirely unexplained in both places. Partial compensation for a three-parameter tool.

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?

States a specific two-phase behavior: return immediate preliminary evidence and queue deeper analysis. This clearly separates it from the retrieval sibling get_progressive_analysis and from the job siblings (start_analysis_job). However it never names an alternative, so differentiation is by inference rather than explicit contrast.

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 supersede clause implies usage context (re-issuing with the same context_id invalidates the prior request), which tells the agent how to think about repeated calls. But there is no explicit when-to-use-versus-alternatives guidance, and the crowded analysis-start sibling family (start_analysis_job, analyze_position, evaluate_position) makes that omission meaningful.

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