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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only that the job was 'queued' and that a result may be returned, without disclosing possible status values, whether a result is partial until completion, or any retention/expiry behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, well matched to the simplicity of a two-parameter read. Nothing is padded and nothing is front-loaded after the point.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return content, and 'status and result' is the extent of it — no enumeration of states or shape of the result payload. Adequate to call correctly, not adequate to interpret the response.

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% and the description mentions neither parameter. Crucially it never states that runId is the job identifier returned by the submission call (or that it is a UUID), which is the one piece of semantics an agent could get wrong on a status-polling tool.

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?

Specific verb (Read) plus specific resource (status and result of a queued mobility analysis job), and the word 'queued' links it to project_analyze_mobility as the submitter. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the pair rather than being told.

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?

'Queued ... job' implies this is the polling counterpart of project_analyze_mobility, so the usage is inferable. But there is no explicit statement of when to call it, how often to poll, whether to stop on a terminal status, or which alternative to use for starting a job instead.

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