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

Beyond the annotations (which already say readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the polling interval contract, that the call runs under the original operation's permissions, that a disconnected chat does not cancel the work, and that resubmission must not be used to check progress. It also states what success returns and how to present a viewer_url. This is substantial behavior the structured fields do not carry.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core action and polling rule, then moves to result handling and presentation. The viewer_url presentation sentence is slightly editorial but earns its place by preventing a known failure mode. No filler sentences.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, and the description still summarizes what success yields. It covers permissions, polling cadence, and workflow continuity. It does not explain failure or terminal states, i.e., how an agent learns the operation has failed rather than still pending.

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 coverage is 0% for the single operation_id parameter, so the description must carry the meaning, and it does: the ID identifies a still-pending operation and references the retry_after_seconds returned with it. It could go further by saying where the operation_id originates (which call produced it), but the essential semantics are covered.

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 gives a concrete verb-plus-resource statement: continue a pending file import, geometry inspection, or visualization preparation by operation_id. That lets an agent distinguish it from get_artifact or get_job-style retrieval. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

Usage context is explicit: it applies to a pending operation, poll no faster than retry_after_seconds, and never resubmit to check progress. What is missing is routing guidance toward siblings such as cancel_operation or get_artifact when the operation is done or should be abandoned.

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