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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the return content (processing state and metadata) and that it is a single-item lookup, but it says nothing about error behavior for unprocessed/invalid builds, what states are possible, or side effects.

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 tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the usage rule second; nothing is padded. The only inefficiency is the misleading "by build_id" clause, which spends words on a parameter that does not exist.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers intent and return subject adequately. But the unresolved build_id reference leaves the agent without a known way to identify which build to fetch, which is the one thing this tool absolutely requires.

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?

The description says the lookup is "by build_id," but the schema contains no build_id property at all — only notification_message, which the description never mentions. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description actively points at a nonexistent parameter, which could lead an agent to construct a malformed call.

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?

"Get one build's processing state and metadata by build_id" names a specific verb (get), resource (one build) and the attributes returned (processing state, metadata), which cleanly separates it from list_builds. It does not distinguish itself from wait_build_processed, which appears to serve a very similar purpose.

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?

"Use before attach_build_and_compliance to confirm the build finished processing" gives an explicit sequencing rule with a named sibling, which is genuinely actionable. It omits when to prefer wait_build_processed or list_builds instead, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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