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

Annotations already declare this is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing event contents and warning not to infer missing metrics, though it omits cursor lifetime, ordering, and pagination behavior.

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 definition is only two sentences and is front-loaded with the main purpose, so it avoids filler. However, the second sentence is dense and mixes cross-checking with domain-specific reporting guidance, and the phrase 'owned summaries' is ambiguous.

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?

The output schema and annotations reduce what the description must explain. Still, for a three-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the definition is missing key operational details about pagination, cursor semantics, and the limit parameter.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It only hints at the cursor with 'using the returned cursor' and does not explain the job_id requirement, the 'after' parameter, the limit parameter, or the default and maximum values.

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 verb and resource: 'Read incremental job progress/events using the returned cursor.' It also identifies event categories such as execution, diagnostic evidence, failure, and cancellation outcomes. It is distinguishable from get_job, though the reporting guidance makes the purpose statement less crisp.

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 implies usage for incremental progress retrieval via a cursor and says to check results with get_job and owned summaries. However, it does not explicitly say when to use get_job_events instead of get_job, nor does it define when not to use this tool.

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