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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely non-obvious traits – the state is 'private' (scoped to the caller's token) and 'transient' (may disappear) – but says nothing about terminal states, retention window, or whether polling is expected.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key qualifier (your own, queued) arrives early. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the missing usage guidance.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is small: the description doesn't tie operation_id back to kb_skills_delete/kb_skills_purge, which is the one piece an agent must know to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: tenant_slug is thoroughly documented in the schema while operation_id has only a uuid format. The description's phrase "your own queued skill deletion or purge operation" hints at where operation_id originates, which is a modest addition over the bare schema, but it still doesn't define the identifier's provenance or format explicitly.

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 (read) and a precise resource: the private transient state of an already-queued skill deletion or purge operation. An agent can tell this is a status-check endpoint rather than the delete/purge action itself, though no sibling (kb_skills_delete, kb_skills_purge) is named explicitly.

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?

"queued ... operation" implies this is used after an asynchronous delete or purge call has been started, but the description never says so directly, nor does it name which tool produces the operation_id or what to do if the state is gone. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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