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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the description's added value is the single-shot polling model and the fact that large results are truncated to deciding fields unless parts is given. That truncation detail is genuinely useful context an agent cannot get from the annotations. It stops short of describing status values or behavior on unknown/expired jobs.

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 key facts (single check, status and result, brief default) are front-loaded and there is little waste. The final parts sentence is a dense run-on with awkward punctuation, which slightly hurts readability.

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 carries the return-value burden and does reasonably well: status, file URLs / notes, and the truncation/expansion model are all covered. Missing are error or still-pending cases, which an agent polling a job would want.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the schema by explaining the default 'brief' result shape and exactly what 'in full' means for different part types (a render_score part's every receipt, a mix part's strip, rides and loudness). That is real added meaning for choosing the parts parameter.

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 ('Check an async doseedo task once') and describes the outcome (status plus result when finished), which is far more than the title. It distinguishes itself only implicitly from doseedo_wait_task via the word 'once'; the sibling is never named.

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 word 'once' implies a poll-again-later pattern versus blocking, but the description never says when to use this instead of doseedo_wait_task or doseedo_list_jobs, nor what to do if the job is still running. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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