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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, repeatable read, so the description's only added context is that it targets asynchronous jobs still in flight. It does not say whether repeated polling is expected, whether partial results are returned, or what states the status can take, which are the traits that matter for a polling tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause (resource, originating tools, lookup key) carries 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 should convey what a 'status' looks like and what the agent should do next when a job completes; neither is covered. It is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool correctly but leaves the polling workflow underspecified.

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%, including the enum list for language, so the description need not restate parameter meaning. Its note that job_id comes from scan_domain or audit_domain is useful routing but duplicates the schema's own description of that parameter.

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 and resource ('Gets the status of a scan_domain or audit_domain') and ties it to the job_id those tools return, which distinguishes it from the get_quick_check_result and get_findings siblings. It stops short of explicitly excluding those alternatives, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'that was still running' implies this is a follow-up call after scan_domain/audit_domain returns a job_id, but there is no explicit 'use when' instruction, no polling guidance, and no statement about what to do once the job finishes (e.g. call get_findings).

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