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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that the tool waits up to about 10 seconds while an import is running, returns pending/ready/failed, and does not consume the recognition allowance. The ready-state details such as menuId and a private ChefBear link add useful behavioral context even though an output schema exists.

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 compact and front-loaded: it first states when to use the tool, then explains return states and waiting behavior, then gives polling limits. Every sentence carries practical information, and there is no redundant 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?

For a simple one-parameter polling tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the prerequisite, latency behavior, return outcomes, polling policy, and safety note. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly without needing to infer missing behavior.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage and already explains that jobId is the ID returned by import_menu. The tool description reinforces the import_menu context but does not add syntax, format, or validation details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: it checks whether a menu import is ready after import_menu. It clearly distinguishes this polling/status tool from the sibling import_menu action and from menu retrieval tools like get_menu.

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 explicitly says to use this after import_menu and gives concrete polling guidance: check at most twice in a row, then tell the user and check again on their next message. These are actionable usage constraints that an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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