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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world traits, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely useful billing behavior: it settles the charge to the actual result count on completion and refunds the remaining reservation, and the lookup itself is free. That is real side-effect disclosure beyond the annotations. It stops short of describing job states or failure behavior.

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 content is front-loaded and the length is acceptable, but the English and Korean sentences are near-verbatim duplicates and '무료' is stated twice ('조회는 무료입니다. [무료]'). Roughly half the text is redundant restatement rather than new information.

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 carries the burden of explaining what 'status and results' look like, and it does not: no enumeration of job states (running/done/failed), no mention of partial results or polling cadence, and no failure/refund edge cases. The billing semantics are complete, but the return-shape guidance an agent needs 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter is already documented in the schema with its 32-char hex pattern. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for schema-covered parameters is correct.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Get the status and results of a ... collection job') and names the covered platforms (Instagram, TikTok, Amazon, Google Maps). It is clearly the polling counterpart to the *_create siblings, but it never names or contrasts an actual sibling tool, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Usage context is only implied: the job_id pattern and the settlement/refund language signal this is called after submitting a collection job. The '무료/[무료]' note adds a cost caveat, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative (e.g., how to cancel or re-fetch) guidance.

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