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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top by disclosing the shape of what comes back (every open job, its last run's own sentence, its wait condition, next look time), which matters since no output schema exists.

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, front-loaded with the return content and then the parameter routing, with no redundant restatement of the name. Domain jargon ('tommo', 'its last run's own sentence') makes it dense but not wasteful.

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?

For a read tool with no output schema it does sketch the response, which is the main gap it needed to fill. However, both parameters are optional in the schema while the description implies you name one, leaving the neither-param behavior and any error condition unexplained.

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 0%, so the description carries the param burden, and it does: contact_id selects a lead and widens scope to its deals' jobs, while deal_id narrows to one deal. This meaningfully disambiguates both parameters. It omits any note on id format or on what happens when neither id is supplied.

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 states a specific read resource (a tommo's work on a lead or deal) and enumerates what it returns: open jobs, the last run's sentence, what it waits for, and when it looks again. An agent can tell this is a job-status rollup rather than a single-record read. It stops short of naming a sibling, so it leaves the read_a_job / read_the_workspace_state boundary to inference.

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?

It gives concrete routing guidance: pass contact_id for a lead (returning its own job and its deals') or deal_id for a single deal. That is clear context for selecting the right scope. It does not state when NOT to use it or name an alternative tool, so it falls short of the explicit 5.

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