check_analysis_status

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the burden and does real work: it discloses that the tool is pollable and returns different shapes over the lifecycle (progress vs. terminal report), which is the key behavioral fact. It omits rate/polling limits and doesn't confirm the read-only, side-effect-free nature explicitly.

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 plus an Args block, front-loaded with the core behavior. The Python-docstring style 'Args:' formatting is slightly out of place for a tool description but costs no clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description wasn't obliged to enumerate return values, yet it usefully summarizes what arrives on completion. The remaining gap is the missing sibling comparison for a status tool that sits next to get_report_json and get_text_fixes.

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 0% and the single parameter is a bare 'Run Id' string, but the Args section compensates by explaining exactly what the value is and the two ways to obtain it. That is genuine meaning beyond the schema, though it stops short of format details.

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+resource ('Check a ReviewMetric review') and immediately characterizes the two response modes: progress while running, and full report + Atlas placement + text-fix count when done. It never names a sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary with get_report_json and get_text_fixes on its own.

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?

Usage is only implied: the run_id provenance ('returned by submit_manuscript (or listed by list_my_reviews)') tells the agent where to get the input, which suggests a post-submission polling flow. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus get_report_json, nor guidance on how often to poll.

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