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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does add real value: it declares the call is anonymous-safe and that nothing is written to business data, which reassures an agent about side effects. It does not say whether successive progress messages replace or accumulate for the user, nor whether there is any rate limit on repeated calls.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the call cadence, then the side-effect boundary. Every sentence contributes and nothing is padded.

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?

The purpose, cadence, and safety profile are covered, which is most of what an agent needs. But with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the unmentioned `stage` and `percent` fields are a real completeness gap for a tool intended to be called repeatedly mid-task.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the required `text` parameter well, including that it must be user-readable and gives a concrete example ("report parsing, ~10 seconds"). However, the optional `stage` and `percent` parameters are never mentioned in either schema or description, leaving two of three parameters semantically opaque.

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 states a specific verb and resource (report progress for long-running tasks) and immediately scopes the effect: it does not persist business data, it only surfaces process to the user. No sibling tool overlaps this purpose, so an agent can distinguish it cleanly.

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 explicitly says when to call: once per completed stage during a long-running task. That is a concrete cadence rule rather than an implied one. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for cases where the task finishes instantly or fails, but no obvious sibling exists for that.

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