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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), lowering the bar, and the description still adds real behavioral content: the exact status vocabulary and the fact that partial progress, an ETA, and written-row info are returned. With no output schema, this return-value disclosure is genuinely useful. It does not cover polling cadence or job retention, so a 4 rather than 5.

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 information-dense sentence with no filler; every clause (statuses, progress, ETA, run_id reuse, sheet output) earns its place. The nested-parenthesis chain around run_id is slightly harder to parse and the sentence opens with context rather than the action, costing it the top score.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter, read-only polling tool with no output schema, the description covers the return payload thoroughly and even documents how to reuse run_id downstream. The main omission is how to acquire job_id, which the 0%-coverage schema leaves entirely unaddressed.

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?

There is one parameter (job_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'a job a tool started' tells the agent the id refers to a previously launched job, but it never states the id format or explicitly where the agent obtains it. That is meaningful but incomplete compensation, matching the minimum-viable 3.

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 makes clear this tool reports on a background job started by another tool, and enumerates exactly what comes back: status (queued, running, done, failed), rows done of total, ETA in minutes, run_id, and sheet writes. No sibling tool covers this job-progress niche, so it is effectively self-differentiating. It falls short of a 5 only because the purpose is expressed as a noun phrase ('For a job... its status') rather than a plain statement of the action.

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 the selecting condition implicitly: use this for a job 'a tool started (a list by reference bigger than one call)', i.e. long-running batch work. It also gives downstream usage guidance — reuse the returned run_id as source { run } in any tool or from_run in render_map. There is no explicit poll-until-done instruction or when-not guidance, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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