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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the asynchronous polling nature and terminal states, which is valuable. However, it does not mention non-terminal status values, error behavior, or any result payload details.

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 with the main action first and no filler. Every word adds value, especially the explicit polling instruction.

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 status-check tool, the description covers the core necessity: what to poll and when to stop. It omits a pointer to the next step (e.g., gmaps_get_photos_results) and non-terminal statuses, but these are not required to invoke 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?

The schema fully describes the single parameter jobId as 'Job UUID from gmaps_create_photos_job' (100% coverage). The description adds no parameter-specific information, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Get'), resource ('photos job status'), and terminal states ('completed, partial, or failed'). The 'photos' scope distinguishes it from generic siblings like gmaps_get_job and from result-fetching tools like gmaps_get_photos_results.

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?

Gives clear context: poll until a terminal status is reached. This implies when to use the tool (after creating a job, repeatedly until completion). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient.

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