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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the description's extra value is cost and auth: "Free. Needs sign-in." Those are operationally important facts an agent can act on. It does not disclose the response shape or whether repeated polling is expected, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences plus "Free." and "Needs sign-in." — the multi-mode usage is front-loaded and nothing is padding. The telegraphic style suits an operational tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description should convey what comes back — whether a cursor is returned, whether status can still be "working", and how to tell completion from continuation. It implies the async/poll pattern but never spells out the return contract, which is the main gap for a polling tool.

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 both properties are documented, including where cursor and request_id come from, so the schema does the work. The description only restates "pass the request_id it gave you" and the cursor paging, adding no format or syntax detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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 two concrete operations — completing an async request that returned status "working", and paging with a cursor — on a resource identified by request_id. An agent knows what it gets. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like search_products or get_product, though the schema's request_id provenance hints at the relationship.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger condition ("a request that answered with status 'working'") and a second mode ("read the next page with a cursor"), which is more than most definitions offer. No exclusions or named alternatives are provided, and it doesn't say what to do if the status is still "working" after calling.

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