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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: the call can block on wait_s, and a job may return while still running, requiring a follow-up poll. It stops short of stating default/hard limits on waiting or what a partial result looks like.

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?

Two terse sentences with no filler; the returned content is front-loaded before the blocking behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description does carry the return-value burden and handles it: status, result, or error. Combined with the annotation safety profile and full schema coverage, an agent has enough to call it, though the running-state follow-up only appears in the schema rather than the description.

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%, so design_id and wait_s are fully documented in the schema, including the 55s default and the follow-up advice. The description's 'wait_s holds the call until it ends' largely restates that, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific resource (the design's latest board job) and states exactly what is returned: status plus, once ended, result or error. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_board_status, which is a plausible source of confusion.

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 sentence 'wait_s holds the call until it ends' implies this is a blocking poll, and the schema note says a still-running job should be followed with get_board_job. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_board_status or get_fab_status, so usage is only implied.

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