product_agent_run

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint all false), so they convey nothing; the description carries the full burden. It discloses persistence behavior (run, step log, events, replayable checkpoint persisted under caller's organization), synchronous execution, and the completion status semantics. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place: purpose + selection heuristic, sibling differentiation, and persistence/return summary. The most decision-critical info (what it does, when to use it) is front-loaded before the lifecycle comparisons. No filler.

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 complex 5-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the return fields (run_id, status, result, step list, tools_used, latency_ms) and explaining the internal selection logic. It could note the approval/pause lifecycle in slightly more detail, but it is largely complete for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents all five parameters (task, tools, context, max_steps, output_format). The description adds the tool-restriction concept and default formats that overlap with the schema but doesn't introduce materially new parameter-level semantics, so baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('execute'), a specific resource ('simple product agent'), and mode ('synchronously'), then describes the agent's tool-selection heuristic. It clearly distinguishes itself from create_agent_run and get_agent_run, and the tool-selection mapping (optimize/simulate/search/calculate) makes the purpose concrete and memorable.

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?

Explicitly directs when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use this for one-shot task execution; use create_agent_run when you need a paused or approval-gated lifecycle, and get_agent_run to re-fetch the persisted record.' This is textbook usage guidance with named alternatives and selection conditions.

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