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

Annotations provide the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, not destructive), but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the exact 5-second wait polling loop, the mandatory continuation until success/no_data/error/cancelled, the wire-level ResponseStatus values, and the distinct return contracts for queries vs exports. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs disclosed.

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 dense but every section earns its place: purpose, usage trigger, type dispatch, polling loop, return contract. It is front-loaded with the core action and the strongest guidance first. Slight redundancy exists — "DO NOT stop until..." and "Only stop when operation is finished" restate the same rule — so it's not perfectly tight.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return contract for both operation types (paginated results + dataDumpExportOperationId vs downloadUrl/fileName/totalRows). It also resolved the missing pieces not present in annotations or schema: poll cadence, termination conditions, status vocabulary, and how to distinguish query operations from export operations. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The schema only documents operationId as "The operation ID" (and _requestId not at all, coverage 67%), so the description carries the semantic load: it explains that operationId comes from responseType="paging"/"csv" calls, distinguishes the two ID formats, and states it is required. The feedback and _requestId parameters are peripheral to operation, so the mild incompleteness of coverage on them is not costly.

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 first sentence names a specific verb-resource pair — "poll an async operation and retrieve its results or CSV download URL" — which is unambiguous and distinct from siblings like cancelOperation and checkAccessKeyStatus. The description goes further by explaining the two operation types (op_toolname_xxx vs op_datadump_xxx), making the tool's scope fully concrete.

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 explicit, actionable when-to guidance: "Use this after any tool call made with responseType=paging or responseType=csv", plus background job status checks and S3 link retrieval. It does not name direct alternatives/exclusions — notably cancelOperation is never mentioned as when NOT to use this — so it stops short of a full 5.

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