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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds the job_id lineage and the result buckets, but since an output schema exists, the bucket enumeration largely restates what is already structured, and it says nothing about in-progress behavior or polling.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the originating tool and result categories packed into the same clause. No filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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-only status tool with an output schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, provenance of the ID, and the reported states. Only polling/retry guidance for an unfinished job is absent, which is a minor gap.

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 single parameter's schema description ('the job id returned by add_people_to_crm') already explains its origin. The description reinforces that provenance but adds no new format or lookup detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (check progress) and resource (a bulk add job), and names the originating sibling add_people_to_crm so the agent knows exactly which workflow it belongs to. It also enumerates the outcome categories reported (done, added, skipped, failed), leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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?

The phrase 'started with add_people_to_crm' gives clear triggering context: use this after kicking off that tool. There is no explicit exclusion or statement about what to do instead (e.g. polling cadence or what to do if the job is still running), so it falls short of a 5.

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