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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its words on the status state machine and an agent-facing caution not to claim the company was added or invent jobs while work is in progress. It stops short of saying where submission_id comes from or whether polling is rate-limited.

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 the purpose then the status contract, with no filler. Every sentence supplies actionable information.

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-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the description covers status interpretation and the anti-hallucination guard. The one real gap is how to obtain the required submission_id, which matters because the tool cannot be invoked without it.

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% for the single required parameter, so the description must compensate and does not: submission_id is never mentioned, and there is no hint that it comes from companies.submissions.create. An agent must infer both the identifier's origin and its format.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource (read company submission progress), which separates it from the write-side sibling companies.submissions.create. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives explicit per-state guidance: queued/detecting/processing means wait, ready means re-search by company name, unsupported and failed each have defined meanings. That is a clear when-to-proceed/when-not-to-proceed routing rule, which is exactly what an agent needs.

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