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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the status vocabulary: 'awaiting_user', 'created' (with model_id), 'cancelled', 'expired'. It also discloses the read-scope requirement, which annotations do not. It does not explain polling behavior or what to do between calls, keeping it just under a 5.

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, each carrying distinct payload: what it checks and its provenance, when to call it, and what comes back. The status list is placed last and is compact; no sentence repeats the title or the schema.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: provenance of the ID, the trigger condition, the auth requirement, and the possible status values. Nothing material is left to inference.

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% and the single parameter's description already says it is the pending_target_id returned by create_target, so the description's 'Requires the read scope' is the only extra context and it concerns auth rather than the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents the only argument.

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 and resource ('Check a pending MCP target') and immediately ties it to the originating tool: the target 'that create_target left for your user to finish'. That single clause separates it from get_target_profile, get_assessment_status, and the other get_* siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit timing and cadence — 'Call it once when your user says they are done' — which is exactly the trigger an agent needs. It stops short of naming a when-not case (e.g., what to do if the user cancels or never finishes), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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