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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior — that the call blocks up to ~40 seconds while the check runs — which is the single most operationally relevant property for an agent planning timeouts. It omits what is returned if the wait elapses (running vs. failed status), leaving one behavioral gap.

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 stating scope first and the blocking behavior second, with no filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs to select and time the call.

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, the description carries some burden for describing return values, and 'status or result' only gestures at the shape — an agent does not know the possible status values or what a completed payload looks like. For an otherwise simple two-parameter read tool this is adequate but leaves the return contract underspecified.

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 check_id provenance and the wait flag's ~40 second semantics are already documented in the schema. The description restates the wait window but adds no extra syntax, format, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Get the status or result of a product page check...') and enumerates the resource families it covers (page check, store scan, AI shortlist test, video scripts). Combined with the 'by check_id' key, an agent can distinguish this result-fetching tool from the initiating siblings like check_product_page or scan_store_catalog without opening either 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 description makes clear this is the retrieval step keyed on a check_id and states the default wait behavior, which is the main decision an agent faces when calling it. It stops short of explicitly saying 'call this after initiating a check' or when to prefer waiting versus polling later, so the when-not guidance is only implied.

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