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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile. The description adds a genuine behavioral trait beyond that: the call can block until the job ends, and it returns either a result or an error at completion. It does not describe timing limits or what 'running' looks like, which the schema does.

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, front-loaded with the resource and return shape, followed by the one behavioral nuance that matters. No filler.

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 polling tool with no output schema, the description states what comes back (status, then result or error) and how the call behaves. The safety profile is covered by annotations and parameter detail by the schema. Minor gap: no mention of how multiple/older jobs are handled.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including wait_s default, max, budget behavior, and restart survival. The description only reinforces the blocking nature of wait_s; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource: fetch the design's latest board job, returning status and, on completion, result or error. The scope ('latest board job') is precise enough to distinguish it from most siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_board_status or get_fab_status.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'wait_s holds the call until it ends' signals a polling/long-wait pattern, but the description names no alternative tool or condition for choosing this over get_board_status. The schema carries the follow-up guidance ('follow it with get_board_job'), not the description.

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