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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on cost ('FREE (key)') and on output character (records returned in the order sent), but it never explains what the possible 'state' values are or how long results remain retrievable — important gaps for a polling tool.

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?

A single dense sentence with the cost note front-loaded and the return contents enumerated in a sensible order. Some phrasing ('the fields we found') is terse to the point of being slightly ambiguous, but nothing is redundant.

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 and no annotations covering runtime behavior, the description should describe the polling lifecycle and result-retention semantics; it covers the return payload shape and cost but omits state values and failure modes. Adequate to call the tool, incomplete for handling it correctly.

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 50%: the 'language' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'job_id' has no schema description. The description implies job_id identifies an enrich_records job, yet it doesn't say where to obtain it, its format, or what happens with an invalid/expired id, so it only partially compensates.

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 names the specific resource (an enrich_records job) and what it returns (state, end time, records with found fields), which distinguishes it from siblings like check_records. The verb is implicit rather than stated, but 'the state of an enrich_records job' is concrete enough to identify the operation.

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 only implied through the reference to enrich_records — an agent can infer this is the follow-up call after starting that job. There is no explicit guidance on when to poll, how often, or what to do if the job is still running, and no statement of alternatives.

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