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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld. Beyond that, the description adds the enumerated status values (running, finished, ended), the presence of an exit code, and the 48 KB tail-window behavior, all of which are genuine behavioral detail not present in the structured fields.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the offset semantics. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 correctly enumerates the return payload (status, exit code, output) and the pagination behavior. Coverage is strong for a read tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile; only the job_id parameter's expectations remain implicit.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate. It usefully explains the offset windowing behavior, but job_id is left unexplained and the description refers to 'next_offset' while the actual parameter is named 'offset', creating a minor naming mismatch for the agent.

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 description states a specific verb+resource pair ('Status ..., exit code and output of a background job'), clearly distinguishing this read tool from the write-oriented siblings start_job, stop_job, and list_jobs. It is clear what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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 concrete conditional guidance for the main mode of use: without offset you get the last 48 KB, and you pass the offset from the previous answer to fetch only new data. This implies the incremental-polling workflow well, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_jobs or wait_for_approval.

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