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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful return context by naming the state values and result.json output, but it does not disclose whether this is a snapshot or blocking call, what happens for an unknown job, or any permission requirements.

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 description is a single compact sentence fragment with no wasted words, and it front-loads the most important information: the returned state. It could be slightly clearer as a full sentence, but it is efficiently structured.

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?

For a simple status-retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description does mention the main return values. However, it omits how to obtain the required job_id and gives no error or edge-case behavior, so it is only minimally 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 job_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain where job_id comes from or what format it uses. It only implies that job_id identifies the job whose output is returned, which is minimal compensation for the schema gap.

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 clearly specifies the resource (a compute job) and the exact return fields: state, exit code, seconds, and result output. It is more specific than a tautology, but it does not name or distinguish itself from related siblings such as compute_check or compute_logs.

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 description lists what is returned but gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like compute_check, compute_logs, or compute_cancel. Usage is only vaguely implied by the mention of job state and output.

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