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

The annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful context that this checks on a report still being prepared, which explains the tool's role beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and immediately followed by the required parameter provenance. There is no wasted text.

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 single-parameter polling companion to get_home_value_report, the description covers purpose, usage condition, and parameter origin. Annotations and the output schema carry the safety and return-value details, leaving only minor omissions such as polling frequency.

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 100%, so the report_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces that the ID comes from get_home_value_report, but adds little new semantic detail; 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 states a specific action (check on) and resource (home value report), and distinguishes it from the sibling get_home_value_report by focusing on reports still being prepared. The purpose is clear, though 'check on' is slightly less precise than 'poll status'.

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 clearly says to use this when a report was still being prepared and to pass the report_id from get_home_value_report. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it formally with the sibling, but the context makes the usage clear.

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