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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent/safe properties. The description adds valuable behavioral context not in structured data: it discloses the return payload ('Returns status and progress percentage') compensating for the missing output schema, and notes 'Free' suggesting no cost or consumption. Does not contradict 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?

Four tightly constructed sentences with zero redundancy: purpose (sentence 1), return values (2), workflow transition (3), parameter source (4), plus cost note (5). Every element earns its place; information is front-loaded with the core action stated immediately.

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 status-checking tool with 2 parameters, read-only annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool returns (compensating for missing output schema), documents the parameter sources, and maps the full workflow from start to results via sibling tools.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters and their relationships to atlas_start_jd_fit_batch. The description repeats this relationship ('batch_id comes from...') but adds no new semantic depth or format constraints beyond the schema documentation. Baseline 3 appropriate for high-coverage schemas.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Check') and clear resource ('progress of a JD-FIT batch job'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming atlas_get_jd_fit_results for fetching final results and atlas_start_jd_fit_batch as the origin of required IDs.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: states 'When complete, fetch results with atlas_get_jd_fit_results(context_id)' indicating when to stop using this tool and switch to the alternative. Also specifies the prerequisite ('batch_id comes from atlas_start_jd_fit_batch response'), clarifying the temporal dependency chain.

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