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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds non-obvious behavior: polling is free, it never repeats the work, and it imposes a poll cadence via poll_after_seconds. It also enumerates status/phase transitions and describes the result payload's structure.

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?

The leading sentence is well front-loaded and the polling/cost guidance is valuable, but the trailing enumeration of result subfields (evidence formats, facts assessed, conflicts) is dense and runs long. Most sentences earn their place, though the result breakdown could be trimmed.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing return values, and it does so thoroughly: status and phase enum values plus the structure of result (answer, short_answer, evidence, facts, conflicts). Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response is missing.

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 100% – the job_id format (rj_ + 12 hex) and its source are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the request_research origin but adds no new parameter syntax or constraints, 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+resource ('Status and result of a research job') and explicitly ties it to its counterpart 'created by request_research', cleanly distinguishing it from the creation sibling. An agent can tell this is the retrieval/read half of the research workflow without opening the schema.

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 makes the usage context clear (poll a job created by request_research) and gives concrete polling guidance ('poll no more often than poll_after_seconds'). It does not name when-not to use it or point to siblings like stop_research_updates, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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