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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered without the description. The description adds the terminal/non-terminal state vocabulary and that a result is returned, which is useful context, but it says nothing about polling frequency, job expiry, or what happens if the job id is unknown.

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, front-loaded with the return payload and its enumerated states, with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description names the status values and states that a result is returned, which is enough for an agent to interpret the response shape. For a single-parameter poller this is nearly complete; only the job-id lifecycle is unaddressed.

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 0% for the single 'job' parameter, so the description carries the burden. It implies the job identifier originates from a prior call that answered 'running', which is genuinely useful, but it gives no format, source field name, or example value. Partial compensation earns a middle score.

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 resource (job) and precisely what it returns: status and result of an export or any async call. The parenthetical status vocabulary (queued, running, done, failed) makes the operation unambiguous. It does not need to differentiate from siblings since none of the listed tools poll jobs, but it also doesn't name any sibling, keeping it at 4 rather than 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?

The clause 'or any call that answered "running"' is an explicit trigger condition: use this after a prior call returns a running status. That is clear when-to-use guidance. It stops short of stating exclusions or a polling cadence, so it is not a full 5.

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