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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only states 'Status and progress of a job. Free.' It implies a read-only polling operation but does not explicitly say so, nor does it cover error behavior, authentication, or what the returned status means. 'Free' is ambiguous and adds little.

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?

The description is appropriately short and front-loads the core status/progress idea. However, the second sentence 'Free.' does not earn its place and reads as irrelevant noise. The brevity is good, but the content is under-specified.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% parameter coverage, the description is far from complete. It omits required inputs, expected return values, failure modes, and how this tool relates to start_comparison or get_report. An agent would struggle to invoke it correctly without additional information.

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 only 50%: jobToken has a description, but jobId has only a regex pattern. The description adds no parameter meaning, fails to explain that jobId identifies the comparison job, and does not connect jobToken to the creation step. It therefore does not compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 'Status and progress of a job' only restates the title with less specificity, replacing 'comparison' with the generic 'job.' It does not state the resource or a direct retrieval verb, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_report or get_screenshot, which are also job-related.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to poll this tool after start_comparison, when to prefer get_report for final results, or what distinguishes status retrieval from cancel_comparison or get_screenshot. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.

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