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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine domain context — that a job can simultaneously be done-with-a-failed-gate and have a verified endpoint deletion, and that these never collapse into one status — which helps interpretation of the result. It stops short of describing the shape of the receipts or any pagination/limit behavior.

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?

Three sentences with no obvious filler, and the domain caveat is placed usefully. But the opening sentence is dense, unexplained jargon ('hash-bound receipts', 'four independent facts') that consumes space without conveying actionable meaning.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value meaning; it gestures at the payload ('four independent facts plus its hash-bound receipts', gate verdicts listed by id and outcome) but never enumerates what those facts are. Combined with complete parameter coverage and read-only annotations, this is adequate but leaves the response shape partly opaque.

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 description coverage is 100% with three well-documented parameters, so the schema carries the burden and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, not even a note that customerId is a superadmin-only override.

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 identifies the resource (a single training job) and its scope, but never uses a retrieval verb — 'One training job's four independent facts plus its hash-bound receipts' is a noun phrase, not a statement of what the tool does. The jargon ('four independent facts', 'hash-bound receipts') leaves the actual return payload ambiguous, so an agent must infer that this is the read-one-job endpoint.

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?

It points at a sibling alternative by noting 'gate verdicts are listed by id and outcome; get_gate_result returns one in full,' which implies use this tool for the summary view and get_gate_result for detail. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no mention of prerequisites such as the superadmin-only customerId path.

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