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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile needs no explanation. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what is returned (progress plus errors), which matters because no output schema exists, but it omits terminal-state semantics and polling behavior.

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 short sentence with zero filler, and the core capability ('Read progress and errors') is front-loaded before the scope qualifier. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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?

Rich annotations plus a single required parameter mean the definition does not need to carry much, and it covers the return content that an absent output schema would otherwise leave blank. The remaining gap is what to do with the result — e.g. that completed jobs should be followed by get_search_results — which is minor given the tool's narrow read-only shape.

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 single job_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, though the schema does constrain it as a UUID with a validation pattern. The description's only added semantics is that the job must belong to the selected account/team, which implies cross-account job IDs will not resolve but never says so directly.

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 and resource: 'Read progress and errors for a search,' which tells the agent this is a job-status poll returning state and failure info. It is distinguishable from sibling list_search_jobs (enumeration) and cancel_search_job (mutation) by implication, but it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this after a search is kicked off, how often to poll, or that get_search_results is the follow-up once the job completes. The phrase 'in the selected account/team' is a scoping note, not usage guidance.

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