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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the four possible status values and the retry cadence, which is the core operational detail for a polling tool. It stops short of saying what a completed job's results contain.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the return values, then the polling instruction. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 usefully enumerates the status values and tells the agent how to loop. The remaining gap is what 'results' actually look like on completion, but the polling contract an agent needs is largely present.

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 100% and the single parameter's description already states it is the job id returned by supadata_extract. The description only echoes this via 'with the same id', adding no format, uniqueness, or expiry details beyond the schema. 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+resource ('Check extract job status') and adds 'retrieve results', which is the actual payoff. The resource noun 'extract job' cleanly separates it from the sibling polling tools supadata_check_crawl_status and supadata_check_transcript_status.

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?

Gives an explicit polling rule: if status is not 'completed' or 'failed', call again after a few seconds with the same id. That is concrete when-to-use guidance, though it never states the precondition that the id must come from a prior supadata_extract call or names alternatives.

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