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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value by disclosing the returned content (stage progress, queue position, rejection reason tied to objective mismatch, ETA, report link), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits auth or rate-limit context, but that is minor for a read-only status check.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead, and the returned items are listed compactly. It is dense but every clause carries information.

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 tool with annotations covering safety, the description effectively substitutes for the missing output schema by enumerating what is returned. Nothing critical to correct invocation is absent, though a note on the relationship to package_status would complete the picture.

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% and both parameters (pipeline_id, track_token) are documented with their provenance in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions neither parameter nor adds format/syntax detail, so it does not exceed 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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('a commissioned build') and enumerates what it surfaces: stage progress, queue position, rejection reason, ETA, report link. An agent can distinguish it from modify_analysis (which commissions builds), but the description never contrasts it with the similarly-named package_status sibling.

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?

'Check a commissioned build' implies the tool is used after a build has been commissioned, and the schema ties pipeline_id back to modify_analysis, so the post-commissioning context is inferable. However, no explicit when-to-use trigger or when-not/alternative guidance is stated in the description itself.

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