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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered without the description. The description adds that the call returns both status and result, but says nothing about when a result becomes available or how terminal states behave.

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 tight sentence with the key scope front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though minimal to the point of under-specifying.

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 some burden for describing what a status/result response contains (e.g., pending vs completed vs failed), which it does not. Missing that detail, but the read-only polling model is simple enough that it is still usable.

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 two required UUID parameters, so the schema contributes no prose meaning and the description must compensate. It never mentions runId or projectId, leaving their roles (which project the job belongs to, which run to poll) unexplained.

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 (read) and resource (status and result of a queued mobility analysis job), which is clearly distinct from the sibling geobble_project_analyze_mobility that presumably enqueues the job. It does not name that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'queued mobility analysis job' implies this is a follow-up poll after starting an analysis, but it never states when to use it versus geobble_project_analyze_mobility or how polling should be sequenced. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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