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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful context that this is a status/progress poll tied to scrape_leads_start, but it does not disclose return shape, polling behavior, or what 'progress' includes. This is adequate given the annotations, but not rich.

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 a single sentence with no filler and immediately states the tool's purpose and its relationship to scrape_leads_start. It is concise, though the sentence is a fragment and could be slightly more direct with an explicit verb.

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 simple one-parameter status tool with safety annotations already present, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does and which workflow it belongs to. It does not describe the response format, but since there is no output schema and the tool is a straightforward status poll, this is a minor gap.

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 single parameter job_id is fully described in the schema as 'Job id', and schema description coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as reporting the progress of a scrape job and ties it to scrape_leads_start, which distinguishes it from the start and leads-retrieval siblings. However, it is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement (e.g., 'Retrieves the current progress'), so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'started with scrape_leads_start' gives clear context: this tool is for checking progress on a job initiated by that specific sibling. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like scrape_job_leads or state when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusion that would earn a 5.

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