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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real value on top: account-scoping restriction and the polling sequence an agent should follow. It stops short of stating polling cadence or rate limits, which matters for a tool intended to be called repeatedly.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the workflow, then the scope limit. The REST endpoint mapping at the end is a small addition but earns its place for agents familiar with the HTTP API.

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?

For a read-only single-resource lookup with full schema coverage, the description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: the fields returned, compensating for the absent output schema, plus the polling workflow. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, and the job_id description already says 'The id hire_agent returned', so the schema carries the parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Check one job') and enumerates what it returns: status, package, price, payment record, webhook delivery. It is clearly differentiated from list_jobs (single job) and get_job_result (which it explicitly defers to).

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 workflow guidance: poll after hire_agent until status is completed, then call get_job_result, naming the sibling to use next. It also states an exclusion: only for jobs of your key's account.

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