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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the polling-loop pattern, the 'done=false' completion signal, and what each return path contains. It does not discuss failure/timeout behavior, which would push it higher.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and polling instruction, then the return-path distinctions. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-field enumeration is not strictly required, yet the description usefully summarizes the shape of each completion branch. Combined with the polling guidance and sibling routing, an agent has enough to invoke and follow up correctly; missing only edge-case behavior on incomplete jobs.

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 three required parameters, so the description must compensate — it partially does by implying 'kind' semantics through the STEP/layout branches, but says nothing about workspace_id or job_id (format/constraints live only in the schema patterns). This is roughly baseline for a schema-documented-elsewhere tool with a real gap.

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 states the specific action (poll a job) and names the two resource types (STEP import, multi-piece layout), which map directly to the 'step'/'layout' enum values in the schema. An agent can immediately tell this is a status-check tool, distinct from export_pattern or create_layout siblings.

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?

It gives explicit polling guidance ('retry after a short delay while done=false') and routes the agent to the correct alternative for the common follow-up need ('use list_faces for geometric descriptions and pagination'). It also tells the agent what each completion path enables (step_id, layout_id for export_pattern).

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