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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The word 'Poll' adds a real behavioral signal — repeated invocation against a long-running job — but nothing is said about progression, terminal states, error payloads, or expected latency.

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?

One sentence with zero filler, and the resource plus lookup key are front-loaded. It is however so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than disciplined brevity.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, read-only annotations) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, an agent lacks the lifecycle context that makes polling tools useful: which sibling created the job and how to tell the job is done.

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 coverage is 100% and the single job_id parameter already documents the 'job_...' format. 'By job_id' adds no syntax, matching rule, or lookup semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Poll') and resource ('CourseProfiler async job') scoped by job_id, so the agent knows this retrieves status rather than creating anything. It does not name which sibling produces the job or distinguish itself from the other get_* lookup tools, 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?

'Poll ... async job' implies this is called repeatedly after some submission/analysis tool has queued work, which is useful implied guidance. However, it never names the creating sibling (e.g. submit_course, import_course, generate_course_segments) or says what to do when the job finishes or fails.

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