run-endpoint

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and open world (openWorldHint=true). The description correctly implies a non-destructive side effect (async job submission) and adds result retention duration. However, it omits details like failure modes, auth requirements, or rate limits, which with annotations still leaves room for improvement.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, immediate return, and next steps. No fluff or 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description explains the return value (job ID) and result availability (30 min) with polling guidance. It covers essential context but could mention error behavior or partial output.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds the asynchronous context and retrieval method but does not enhance individual parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Submit an asynchronous job'), the resource ('Serverless endpoint'), and the immediate outcome ('Returns a job ID immediately'). It also distinguishes from synchronous runs by mentioning 'get-job-status' polling.

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 advises polling with 'get-job-status' and notes results are available for 30 minutes, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'runsync-endpoint' or state when the async approach is preferred.

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