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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing output shaping (technical metadata hidden, human-readable headings, all user-facing fields preserved), but it omits the critical behavior for a polling tool: what is returned or raised when the job is not yet finished.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the output-shaping behavior second; no filler. The semicolon-joined clauses are dense but each carries 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 structure need not be restated. Still, for a polling tool the description leaves two operationally important gaps: the state of an unfinished job and the provenance of job_id. Adequate but not complete.

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 single parameter job_id has zero schema description coverage, so the description must carry its meaning and does not. It never explains whether job_id is the identifier returned by analyze_contact/analyze_contacts or how to obtain one, leaving the only input underspecified.

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 and resource: poll one business-fit analysis job and return its user-facing result. The subject matter ('business-fit analysis job') distinguishes it reasonably well from generic siblings like get_batch, though the relationship to get_batch/list_batches is never made explicit.

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 word 'Poll' and the clause 'when finished' imply a repeated-call-until-complete pattern, which is useful implied guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_batch, no guidance on retry intervals, and no mention of where the required job_id comes from.

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