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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by saying the status is 'bounded' and the failure reason is 'safe', implying limited/sanitized output, but it does not describe auth needs, possible status values, or response shape.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the resource, scope, and return intent immediately.

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?

Given the low-complexity two-parameter shape and the existing annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. Because there is no output schema, it should say more about what 'processing status' contains or what 'bounded' means, and it gives no usage context against siblings.

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 only 50%: workspaceId is documented in the schema, while candidateId has format/pattern but no description. The tool description says 'one candidate' but does not add any parameter-specific meaning for candidateId or workspaceId, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('processing status'), and scopes it to one candidate while mentioning a safe failure reason. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like get_candidate or get_batch, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. An agent can infer it is for checking processing status after some job is triggered, but nothing tells it why to choose this over get_candidate or get_batch.

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