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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does partially discharge it by disclosing asynchronous completion behavior and the fact that a profile is only returned once ready. However, it omits what the response contains while the role is still generating, whether there is a timeout or expected poll interval, and whether repeated polling has side effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the usage instruction. No filler or redundancy.

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 polling tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials (what it checks, what it yields, when to call it) but leaves gaps around the not-yet-ready response shape and any timeout or retry expectations an agent would need to poll correctly.

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 parameters — including the enum-trading detail flag and its relationship to skill task statements — are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (check) and resource (role generation status), and adds the key outcome: it returns the role profile once finished. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_role or get_assessment, which retrieve already-available entities rather than completion state.

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?

"Poll this after generate_role" explicitly names the sibling that produces the state and the trigger condition for calling this tool. It stops short of saying when to stop polling or what to use instead once the role exists (get_role), but the core usage context is clear.

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