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

With readOnlyHint already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the polling loop and that the response includes record_ids. It does not go into error cases or rate limits, but the added polling semantics go beyond what annotations provide.

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, information-dense sentence that includes the endpoint, the polling behavior, and the response content. Every word earns its place, and it is immediately clear what the tool does.

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?

Given the simple input (one parameter) and lack of output schema, the description is largely complete: it states how to poll and what the response contains. It could mention potential HTTP errors or that record_ids appear only on completion, but these are not essential for basic usage.

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 schema covers the single parameter (job_id) with a description that already includes the polling instruction. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool is a status polling endpoint for contact search jobs, with the specific action of polling until 'completed' or 'failed'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_contact_enrich_status, which polls enrichment jobs, and contact_search, which starts a search job.

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 description explicitly says to poll until a terminal status is reached, which provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention alternatives like run_contact_search, which may wait synchronously, so it misses the explicit exclusion guidance 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.