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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior: it polls, it is non-downloading, and it is server-paced via a bounded retry delay. However, 'retryAfterMs' is not a parameter in the schema (the schema has pollAttempt), which muddies rather than clarifies the polling contract.

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 compact sentences with the capability front-loaded and the operational caveat second. The only weakness is the unexplained retryAfterMs term, which costs a reader a re-read without adding actionable meaning.

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?

The presence of an output schema lowers the bar for explaining return values, and the description covers the core semantics: readiness status, no asset download, and change-gated refresh. The gaps are the unexplained evidence and pollAttempt parameters and the dangling retryAfterMs reference.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does not. The 'evidence' enum (bom|checks) and the 'pollAttempt' counter are never explained, and the only named concept, retryAfterMs, does not correspond to any actual parameter. Only 'versionId' is indirectly gestured at via 'the selected version's artifact readiness'.

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: 'Check current HEAD and the selected version's artifact readiness'. It also draws a boundary against sibling tools like get_board_artifact and read_pcb by saying it works 'without downloading assets or opening a component'. It never names those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 real usage context: use it to poll readiness without pulling assets, honor the bounded retryAfterMs delay, and refresh only when version or readiness changes. What is missing is an explicit alternative ('use get_board_artifact to fetch the artifact') and any statement of when NOT to use it.

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