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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates the status values and clarifies that 'retrying' still means running, discloses refund behavior (credit_status, credits_refunded) on failure, and notes the call is free. This is rich behavioral context not present in structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then the return payload, the routing rule, the polling cadence, the id source, and the cost. Every sentence carries operational value with no filler.

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 return values need not be restated, yet the description still covers the state machine, failure/refund handling, polling guidance, and result retrieval. Nothing an agent needs to call and follow up correctly is missing.

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 100% for the single task_id parameter, so baseline is 3, but the description adds non-trivial meaning by identifying the origin of the value (any async start tool, with concrete examples). It does not add format/syntax detail, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the status of any async task') and immediately differentiates the role of this tool from its siblings by routing to careerproof_task_result once complete. An agent can identify it as the polling companion to the async start tools without ambiguity.

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?

Explicit when-to-use: poll every 5-10 seconds, and when status='completed' fetch results with careerproof_task_result. It also names the upstream tools that supply the task_id, so both the entry and exit conditions are spelled out.

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