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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that a COMPLETED job exposes a `ref` URL in Apogee storage and where that URL is consumed. It omits other job states, failure behavior, and whether repeated polling is expected, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Short and front-loaded, with the purpose in the first line and the useful caveats after it. The opening sentence largely restates the title, which is a small amount of avoidable 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 two-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the one return field that matters (`ref`) but leaves the overall response shape, per-job status values, and error reporting unspecified. Adequate, not complete.

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%: `source` is documented in the schema as coming from import_link, but `job_ids` has no schema description. The description only indirectly implies that job_ids come from import_link and says nothing about the expected identifiers, the 500-item cap, or batching.

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?

"Progress of the jobs started by import_link" names a specific verb (follow/poll progress) and a specific resource (creative import jobs) and ties itself to the producing tool. It is distinguishable from launch_status and bridge_transfer_status by the word "creative import," though it never explicitly contrasts with those sibling status tools.

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 implied rather than stated: the reference to import_link makes clear this is called after a link import, and the mention of prepare_launch hints at the downstream step. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no polling cadence or terminal-state guidance, and no named alternative for tracking other job types.

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