Poll a Spec run

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds useful context by explaining that status is normalised and that progress includes documents and pipeline phases, plus the terminal states to watch for. It does not add much on failure modes or rate limits, but the existing annotations cover the safety profile.

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 well-organised with clear labels for use, exclusions, arguments, and return shape. Every section contributes directly to correct selection and invocation, with no wasted words. The structured format makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description provides a detailed return shape including progress, optional fields, and error_message. It also explains the polling loop and terminal statuses, giving an agent everything needed to drive the tool 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?

The schema only lists two optional UUID parameters, so the description materially clarifies them by stating 'exactly one' and mapping each parameter to the right run_kind and envelope. This is critical usage information the schema itself does not encode, making the parameter semantics substantially clearer.

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 a specific action, 'Poll a Spec run', and enriches it with the actual value returned: normalised status, document-level progress, and per-phase progress for pipelines. It also names sibling alternatives it is not, such as talonic_get_run_results and talonic_run_spec, so the agent can distinguish it immediately.

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?

It gives an explicit 'USE WHEN' condition with concrete polling cadence and terminal statuses, and an explicit 'NOT FOR' section naming the relevant alternatives. This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool versus its siblings.

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