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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the lifecycle states a script can be in and the fact that the call is free, which tells an agent it can safely poll.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and provenance, with zero 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?

With no output schema, the description has to convey return content, and it does outline the statuses plus the shots and lines each ready script carries. It stops short of describing the exact return shape or pagination, but is adequate for correct invocation.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The id write_scripts answered'), so the schema already defines it fully. The description adds nothing about the id's origin beyond repeating the write_scripts linkage, matching the baseline for a well-covered 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?

The description names the exact resource (scripts), its provenance (written by write_scripts), and the states they can be in (queued, in_progress, ready, failed), which cleanly separates it from the sibling write_scripts. The retrieval verb is only implicit, but an agent can tell what it returns 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?

Tying the tool to write_scripts implies the usage context: fetch the results/status of a prior write_scripts call. The trailing 'Free' hints that polling is cheap, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative named.

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