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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool returns status plus per-keyword file metadata and that it supports polling until terminal states. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare 'get job status', though it does not detail error behavior or read-only guarantees.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second adds the essential polling instruction. Every word earns its place.

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 one-parameter polling tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it names the operation, the return focus, and the expected polling pattern. It could more clearly define what 'per-keyword file metadata' means or describe the final response structure, but that is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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%, with the jobId parameter already documented as 'Job UUID from gmaps_create_job'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it lands at the baseline for a fully covered schema.

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 states a specific action ('Get') and resource ('maps job status and per-keyword file metadata'), making the core purpose clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like gmaps_get_photos_job or gmaps_get_reviews_job, but the generic 'maps job' phrasing is enough to imply it is the non-specialized status endpoint.

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 instruction to 'Poll until status is completed, partial, or failed' gives a clear, actionable usage context: this tool is meant to be called repeatedly until a terminal job status appears. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but for a polling endpoint this is sufficient guidance.

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