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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful context beyond the schema — that this hits a legacy was-util endpoint and that job_id maps to enc_request_list.id — but says nothing about terminal states, polling cadence, behavior when the job id is unknown, or auth/rate-limit constraints.

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 with the action front-loaded and the parameter provenance second. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 and there is only one parameter, both of which are covered, so the description is close to complete. The remaining gap is behavioral: for a polling tool, the absence of any guidance on cadence or completion criteria leaves an agent to guess.

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%, so the single job_id parameter is documented only as a bare string in the schema. The description compensates well by explaining it is a ULID returned by submit_encrypt_job and mapping it to enc_request_list.id, which is exactly the provenance an agent needs.

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: 'Poll encrypt job progress' via a named legacy endpoint, which is clearly distinct from the sibling get_job_result that fetches outputs. It does not explicitly name get_job_result as the alternative when the job is finished, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 verb 'poll' implies repeated invocation and the description tells the agent where job_id comes from (submit_encrypt_job), which is genuine usage context. However, there is no statement of when to stop polling, how often to poll, or when to switch to get_job_result/download_job_result.

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