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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the remaining burden is low. The description adds that a completed job yields a result or error and that the call blocks while waiting, but details like the 55s cap, restart survival, and budget behavior live only in the schema parameter text.

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 short sentences that front-load the resource and outcome, with no filler. The second sentence overlaps with the wait_s schema description, which is a minor duplication but not bloat.

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 correctly carries the return semantics (status now, result or error once finished) and the blocking behavior. It could say more about job lifecycle states or what 'latest' means when multiple jobs exist, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 baseline is 3; the design_id and wait_s semantics (default 55, maximum 55, restart and budget behavior) are already thoroughly documented in the schema. The description's 'wait_s holds the call until it ends' restates what the schema says without adding format, deadline, or retry nuance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it retrieves the design's latest board job, returning status and, on completion, result or error. That is clear enough to act on, but it offers no contrast with close siblings like get_board_status or get_board_info, leaving the agent to guess which status tool applies.

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 param text explicitly says to follow a 'running' job with get_board_job again. However, the description itself never says when to prefer this over get_board_status, nor when long-polling is appropriate versus a quick check.

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