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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuine behavioral context: the poll-while-active loop, the readiness_summary handoff, and the anti-pattern of restarting a stopped build. It does not discuss rate limits or cost of polling, but goes well 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?

Front-loads the core purpose in one short sentence, then adds operational guidance in compact clauses. The final sentence is slightly dense and the budget-pause clause is verbose, but nothing is redundant.

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 values (active, readiness_summary, available_actions) need not be re-explained, yet the description still tells the agent how to interpret and present them honestly. Coverage is good for a single-parameter polling tool.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema coverage, and its description already ties job_id to the value returned by start_pack_build. The description adds nothing about job_id format or semantics, so the schema baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Check") and resource ("a durable pack-build job"), which clearly separates it from start_pack_build and the other read siblings. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_verification_status or get_pack_coverage, but the durable-job framing is distinctive enough.

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 concrete usage conditions: poll only while active=true, and when stopped switch to readiness_summary / available_actions. It also states a prohibitive condition (never restart on client execution-window end). It stops short of naming sibling tools as alternatives.

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