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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive local behavior, and the description adds substantive context: the four possible states and the fact that a completed run reports how many days the week has planned. It stops short of describing the exact response shape or terminal-state behavior on failure, but the additions are real value beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences, nothing redundant. The core answer (what states exist) is front-loaded, with the jobId fallback handled in a short trailing clause.

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 does the necessary work of indicating what comes back: a status among four values and a planned-days count. It's sufficient for an agent to call and interpret the tool, though it doesn't say what fields exist on failure or whether the run report includes per-day detail.

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% for the single jobId parameter, and the description's 'Without jobId, the household's latest run' restates what the schema already documents. It adds no extra syntax, format, or scoping detail beyond that baseline.

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 names the exact resource (a planning run), enumerates its states (queued, running, done, failed), and ties it to the two sibling tools that create such runs (plan_week, replan_open_days). That distinguishes it from get_week_plan, which returns the plan itself rather than job progress.

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 clearly establishes the usage context: this is the status probe for a run started by plan_week or replan_open_days, and omitting jobId falls back to the latest run. It never explicitly says to poll after starting a run or contrasts against get_week_plan, so the when-to-use flow is strongly implied rather than spelled out.

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