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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the normalized return states, the existence of a kind-specific detail block, polling cadence, and cost ('Free'). It could say more about behavior on a wrong/missing id, which is why it isn't a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and return normalization before the denser kind-to-id mapping, and the operational notes (cadence, cost) are compact. It is information-dense and readable, though the long parenthetical kind list makes the middle section heavy; still, every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the normalized statuses and the kind-specific detail block, plus cadence and cost. For a 3-parameter polling tool this covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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% and the enum is already documented, so the baseline would be 3. The description exceeds that by disambiguating the generic 'id' parameter per kind – telling the agent exactly which kinds need no id and what the id means for article, update_draft, post_image, and plan_topic_add. That is real semantic value beyond the schema's generic 'job key' text.

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 precise verb+resource ('Status of background work started by another tool') and goes further by naming the exact normalized state vocabulary (queued | running | complete | failed | unknown). This is unambiguous and distinguishable from sibling read tools like get_research_status or get_product_sync_status, since it positions itself as the generic poller for all async kinds.

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?

Gives clear operational guidance: poll every 15-30 seconds, most jobs finish within a few minutes, and it maps each kind back to the tool that started it (write_article_now, add_to_plan), which tells the agent when this tool is the right follow-up. It stops short of explicitly naming when NOT to use it versus overlapping siblings, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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