Get Quick Schema Creation

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it is non-blocking, it returns result.status plus progress/template IDs/saved document IDs or failure details, and it must not be substituted for starting a run. It does not describe rate limits or retry cadence, but the 'call again later' phrasing covers the polling model.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its non-blocking constraint, then routed answers about the result fields. Four sentences that each carry information, though the template_id/saved_document_id sentence is somewhat dense and could be tightened since an output schema exists.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return values, yet it usefully summarizes status, progress, IDs, and failure. Combined with the sibling routing, exit conditions, and the do-not-start-another-run warning, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 50%: run_id has a solid schema description (and the description reinforces its role), but api_url is effectively undocumented. The description's guidance about template_id/saved_document_id concerns return values rather than input parameters, so it does not compensate for the api_url gap. Baseline 3 fits.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (check) plus resource (quick-schema run_id) and a key behavioral constraint ('once without waiting'), which cleanly distinguishes it from wait_for_quick_schema_creation. An agent can tell this is the non-blocking poll variant 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?

Explicit routing: if processing, 'call again later or use wait_for_quick_schema_creation', and an explicit exclusion — 'Do not start another schema-creation run just to check status.' Both the alternative and the anti-pattern are named, leaving nothing to inference.

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