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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that this is an asynchronous polling operation and names the terminal statuses, which goes beyond the schema. It does not mention polling intervals, response shape, or error handling, but the core behavior is disclosed.

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 core purpose and immediately followed by the actionable polling instruction. Every word earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter status poller, the description is largely complete: it states the purpose, the polling behavior, and the terminal statuses. It could optionally point to gmaps_get_reviews_results for fetching results after completion, but sibling names and workflow context make that inferable.

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 100% for the single jobId parameter, including its origin from gmaps_create_reviews_job. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'reviews job status', distinguishing it from the generic sibling gmaps_get_job and from gmaps_get_reviews_results. The polling instruction reinforces its role as a status-checking tool.

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 description gives clear usage context by instructing the agent to poll until reaching terminal states: completed, partial, or failed. It does not explicitly name alternatives like gmaps_get_reviews_results for after completion, but the polling guidance makes the intended workflow understandable.

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