run-endpoint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the job is asynchronous, returns a job ID, and results expire in 30 minutes. Missing details include error handling, authentication requirements, rate limits, and behavior on invalid endpoint IDs.

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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the primary action and return behavior. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool has 5 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description misses important context. It does not mention polling alternatives like webhook (though present in schema), nor S3 config for large outputs. The 30-minute result expiry is helpful, but overall incomplete for a moderately complex 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 100%, so all parameters are already described in the schema. The tool description adds no further meaning about parameters like input, policy, webhook, or s3Config, resulting in baseline score.

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 submits an asynchronous job to a Serverless endpoint, returns a job ID immediately, and directs to use get-job-status for polling. It distinguishes itself from the synchronous sibling runsync-endpoint and the polling-focused get-job-status.

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 clear context for when to use (async jobs) and mentions polling via get-job-status. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, nor does it mention alternatives like runsync-endpoint or webhook-based notification, though the webhook parameter is present in the schema.

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