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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety. The description adds the key behavioral detail that it returns the analysis result if completed, implying a status/result distinction. This enriches the annotation-covered behavioral profile without contradicting it.

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 sentences, both essential. Front-loaded with the primary action ('Check the status'), followed by a clarifying return statement. No filler or redundancy.

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-check tool with one well-documented parameter, a rich output schema, and strong annotations, the description is complete. It doesn't need to explain return values in detail since an output schema exists. It adequately covers the core behavior and usage prerequisites.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'job_id' with a clear description ('job_id returned by a prior run_analysis call'). The description's mention of 'previously-dispatched' adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('status of a previously-dispatched run_analysis job'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_forecast_run or run_analysis. It also states the return behavior ('Returns the analysis result if completed'), adding further specificity.

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 phrase 'previously-dispatched run_analysis job' clearly implies use after run_analysis, providing context for when to call. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling context makes this straightforward. This meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' bar.

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