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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds behavioral context: it returns live progress for in-flight questions and can return a specific async export job status when identifiers are supplied. It doesn't disclose details like whether a missing Study falls back silently or error behavior, but with strong annotations a 3 is the right baseline.

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 one long but information-dense sentence that front-loads the primary purpose (Returns the current Study state) before listing additional artifacts. It is not wasteful, though the list is long and could be slightly more scannable with bullet-like structure. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only status/polling tool with 0 required parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description plus annotations cover the core usage scenario: fetch Study status, optionally pass export identifiers to poll a job. The main gap is that it doesn't describe what the returned status payload looks like, but there is no output schema and the description lists the major content categories. A 4 is fair given the tool's moderate complexity.

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%, so the schema already documents all 7 parameters, including the fuzzy-match behavior and the active-Study omission rule. The description adds the relationship between exportJobId and export_study, and the default exportKind/exportFormat semantics are in the schema. Since the schema carries the heavy lifting, a 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't add much beyond what parameter descriptions already say.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and enumerates the exact resources/artifacts returned: Study state, live progress, per-Audience results, linked Minds, Study links, and export job status. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_study_summary or get_study_run, which target narrower or different resources.

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 the tool returns status, and the parameter descriptions add usage context (omit both panelId and panelName for the active Study; pass export identifiers to poll a specific export). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, but the context signals and sibling list make the read/status role clear. A 4 is appropriate because the usage context is present but exclusionary guidance ('use get_study_summary instead for...') is absent.

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