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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating the possible job states (queued, running, done, failed), disclosing that output is redacted, and stating the required grant — all things the annotations do not convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the returned data and then the access prerequisite. Nothing is padded and no sentence is redundant.

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?

For a simple read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description sensibly covers return contents and the authorization requirement, so no output schema is needed. The gap is parameter handling: with 0% schema coverage, the undocumented result_offset and the two required IDs leave an agent without guidance on paging or ID sourcing.

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 description carries the burden, and it does not describe any of the three parameters. project_id and job_id are only obliquely implied, and result_offset — an offset into results, presumably for paging large output — is never mentioned, leaving an agent to guess whether pagination is required.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it reads the status, exit code and redacted output of an executor job. That clearly separates it from write-side siblings like executor_run and executor_sandbox, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit 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?

It supplies a real prerequisite ('Needs the project grant executor.run'), which tells an agent it needs authorization before calling. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance relative to siblings such as executor_run or executor_ssh_run, so the agent must infer that this is the polling/status companion to a job-launching tool.

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