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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value by disclosing the state machine and the polling contract that an agent must follow. It stops short of stating rate limits or whether repeated polls are throttled, which would be the remaining useful detail.

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 sentences, no filler; the lifecycle is front-loaded and the polling/alternative instruction follows. Every clause carries actionable 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary; the description covers purpose, lifecycle, polling, failure routing, and read-only nature. For a single-param, read-only status tool this is fully sufficient.

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 build_id schema text already explains it is the 'bld_…' ID returned by build, so the description adds nothing parameter-specific. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does all the work for this single required field.

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 ('Read') and resource (a build's current state) and enumerates the full lifecycle (queued, building, uploading, processing, ready/failed), so the agent immediately knows what is returned. It also implicitly separates itself from get_failure, the sibling that supplies the failure reason.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Poll it after build until ready or failed') and names the alternative and its triggering condition ('on failed, call get_failure for the reason'). This is a complete routing instruction, not an inference.

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