run-endpoint

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the job is asynchronous, returns a job ID immediately, and results are available for 30 minutes. However, it omits failure behaviors, rate limits, or security considerations, which limits transparency.

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 with only two sentences, front-loading the key action ('Submit an asynchronous job') and providing necessary follow-up information without unnecessary words.

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 the complexity of 5 parameters including nested objects and no output schema, the description covers core usage (async, polling, result expiry). However, it lacks details about job ID format, error responses, or how to interpret results, though get-job-status fills some gaps.

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 100%, so parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter relationships or usage beyond what the schema provides, resulting in no extra value.

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 'Submit an asynchronous job to a Serverless endpoint', which specifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning async nature and refers to get-job-status for polling, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use (to submit async jobs) and mentions polling via get-job-status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use, such as for synchronous needs where runsync-endpoint might be appropriate. Sibling tools exist but are not referenced.

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