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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, matching description (polling/status). Description adds crucial behavioral detail: waits up to 40 seconds, returns result when done or progress/files changed so far. This goes beyond the annotation, revealing async behavior and partial results. No contradiction.

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 short paragraphs; first states purpose, second explains waiting behavior and return conditions. Front-loaded with purpose, zero waste. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given output schema exists (not detailed here but indicated), description explains the timing and partial-result behavior, which is the key uncertainty. With readOnlyHint and full schema coverage, this is complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 job_id, with a straightforward description. The description adds that job_id comes from chat, which is already implied by the schema ('The job_id that chat returned'), but reinforces the origin. No additional elaboration needed.

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?

Clear verb (get) and resource (chat status/turn result). Ties to job_id and sibling chat. Distinguishes from get_deployment_status and get_dev_logs clearly. Title matches description.

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?

States it retrieves the result of a chat turn by job_id, implying it should be used after starting a chat. Doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but siblings are distinct enough. It mentions waiting behavior, which guides usage.

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