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

Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing both possible outcomes: links when ready, or elapsed running time otherwise. It does not mention polling cadence or terminal failure states, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 sentences with no waste: the first defines the condition being checked, the second enumerates the return outcomes. Both are front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 return values must be conveyed in prose, and the description does so concretely (shareable link, editor link, or elapsed duration). Combined with a fully documented single parameter, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 the sole parameter (deal_id) is documented there as 'the deal_id returned by rebuild_deck'. The description 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 (Check) and resource (whether a rebuild has finished), and ties it to the sibling that initiates the operation (rebuild_deck). An agent can distinguish this polling tool from rebuild_deck and get_deck without opening the schema.

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 phrase 'a rebuild started with rebuild_deck' tells the agent this is the follow-up to a prior rebuild_deck call, giving clear usage context. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming alternatives for checking deck state (e.g., get_deck).

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